|
On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote:
Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made? HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world. Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents? I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own. If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads. If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.
Game of Thrones is a great example in the TV episode format for video production, that was made into an ultrasuccessful phenomenon by free media sharing. God Bless the guy at HBO who leaked them before they aired on HBO, it made the obsession even greater for me.
|
On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote:
Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made? HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world. Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents? I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own. If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads. If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.
God yes. It annoys me to no end that there's region blocking on US stream sites. The fact that there's no possible way (afaik) to even watch game of thrones here until months later on public (free) Swedish television.
There's literally no option unless you want to watch it months later, at a specific time and day, Swedish subtitles and all that shit.
Why does it have to be so goddamn hard to watch US TV series without using piracy? If they spent half the money they spend bribing governments on making streams available everywhere they'd profit a lot more I'd imagine.
In Sweden it was also like blatantly obvious bribing going on in the piratebay case. The judge was a high up member of the 'Anti piracy bureau', and when he was the replaced the next judge was a member as well. There are loads of those examples.
They could just make the pilot aired for free on their stream net work so you get a feel for the show, and then you buy episodes or seasons so you can watch them on the stream / downloading site when it's aired.
I'd pay for that.
It's also interesting how very few games nowdays have demos (is that what it's called in English? The discs released for free where you can try out the first mission or so for free before you buy the game) which also makes me pirate games to actually see if it's worth buying.
I know a lot of people who do the same.
I mean a user of add block is just as bad as a downloader. A person who downloads a CD and a person who watches it for free on youtube but uses add block to skip commercials are equal criminals, but so far I've heard no witch hunt after add blockers on youtube.
I dunno, it all just seems so unreasonable.
|
Damn, I was hoping it would go back up but it looks like GG now. Although I don't torrent much, I used Demonoid as my main tracker =|. Hopefully the US govt doesn't do anything to it's users now that they have all the data? Not sure what they can do and I'm doubting they'll do anything but it still sucks
|
Yea, one of my friends basically pirates games off piratebay. If he likes it he'll buy the game. If he doesn't, he'll usually stop playing like 2 hours in and never touch it again.
|
I've used demonoid quite a bit. This kinda sucks now.. :/
|
As long as I can keep downloading stuff that isn't even obtainable in a legal way then I'm fine. If I can buy something, I do (piracy with the intent of getting something for free is bad), if I can't, I pirate.
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) If you're in the US, yes. I have to wait years to watch series from the US in a legal way. No thanks.
If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century. Well said.
|
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on.
|
On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on.
Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up...
|
Im one of those rare people that are only able to watch something once and then not give a damn about it ever again. Quite possibly because I have stupid recall ability.
But if there was a site out there that let me download say...anything for $1 or $2 and only let me play it a max of 2-3 times before renewal. I would be all over that. But as it is. things cost alot and torrents are just far to easily accessible.
edit- also on torrents being accessible. Usually in Australia most things can be delayed months unless its something super popular. But even then the chance of it being on a pay service first is highly likely.
|
Even shutting down Megaupload didn't stop me.
|
On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote:
My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that.
I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment.
|
I think this community of internet super users is no place to gauge proper reactions to media sharing sites getting shut down.
That said I think this community of internet super users is the perfect place to gauge reactions to media sharing sites getting shut down. ;D
|
On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up...
yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments.
|
There's a difference between pirating because you have no other realistic means and pirating because you don't want to pay. The problem is that there's no way to distinguish would be customers and people who just want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
On August 08 2012 16:17 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote:
My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment.
Right but they know they can't sell it at that pricepoint without blowback. Based on their research they have priced it at the near perfect point between loss of significant profits due to refusal and blowback, to the point far less profit of reasonably and respectfully priced entertainment, due to complacency and convenience and miraculously effective marketing. What I purport is changing the game by more people pirating such that it sends a message of refusal to accept the status quo.. to media conglomerates.
|
On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments.
Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
|
On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
Way to label entire generations based on the few. My dad is 57 and uses the Pirate Bay regularly, he recognizes the value of art, but only pays for it if it is worth it. He doesn't subscribe to the 'commit to buy' approach with no exchanges or refunds. If you can't determine if art or media is satisfactory before you pay for it, then isn't it a risk on investment?
|
On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up.
If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash.
|
On August 08 2012 16:24 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote:
My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment. Right but they know they can't sell it at that pricepoint without blowback. Based on their research they have priced it at the near perfect point between loss of significant profits due to refusal and blowback, to the point far less profit of reasonably and respectfully priced entertainment, due to complacency and convenience and miraculously effective marketing. What I purport is changing the game by more people pirating such that it sends a message of refusal to accept the status quo.. to media conglomerates.
You can tell them that a high price point is unacceptable by simply not buying the game. When you torrent the game, you have committed a crime. Voting with your wallet is different from pirating.
|
On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote:
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on.
Long live magnet links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
