|
On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things.
If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating?
|
Perfect example. I wouldn't know who M83 was if it weren't for pirating. Now I own all their music. Thus my pirating produced about 120 dollars in revenue for them / their record company.
On the other hand, I downloaded all of Becoming the Archetype, and listened through it a few times, but didn't like it too much. I may have deleted it, or it might be collecting dust on my hard disk. Doesn't matter. It's not like I would have taken a chance and bought it if pirating were magically eliminated. I would never have paid for it to begin with. I only got it because it was available through P2P sharing. Thus my pirating lost this band/company zero dollars.
We are living in a new age of information sharing and free mass advertising, yet companies still want to do things the archaic way with old traditional business models. You are not being moral by defending their laws that try to keep the status quo static, you are just being naive. It's going to happen, and it's going to continue to happen, it's the nature of the free internet, and the only way to stop it is to make the internet controlled (SOPA etc), and that would be a real shame. Companies can get smart and get on board with it, or they can keep spending millions in court to recoup a negligible amount of loss from occasional scumbags who actually pirate everything and don't end up spending a dime on anything they become a fan of.
|
On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating?
What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong?
|
On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong?
Broadcasting licenses are the difference.
You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s).
i.e. since someone brought up streamers:
Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment.
Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy").
|
On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s).
Right, so streamers are technically breaking the same laws then?
|
On August 09 2012 01:18 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). Right, so streamers are technically breaking the same laws then?
I dont know if it's the same law for both cases (would probably also depend on the country).
But both is breaking a law - though not necessarily the same.
|
Every time I read news like this one, I'm wondering if the music/cinema industry is winning more money or not?
I mean, do we buy more cd/digital copy/dvd since the shutdown of megaupload?
|
Whoever is responsible for this should be bitchslapped until they cry.
|
On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong?
There is a big difference especially legally. I think in the netherlands for example, it is legal to pirate but illegal to distribute. (or something like that, I dont know the specifics)
|
I've used Demonoid for a long time. Had a pretty great ratio there too.
But when I really think about it.. I only ever torrented things that I already owned.
I torrented Black and White 2 back in the day, but only because I'd lost my disks and I really wanted to play again. I've also torrented the original Everquest on a few machines, because I used to play but have absolutely no idea where the 8 CDs I used to install the original Everquest Trilogy, Luclin, Planes of Power, etc. actually went to. Also its probably quite a bit quicker just to download the installer than to search for the disks.
I have nothing really against torrenting music, if you intend to buy the artists CD or album once you've tried some of their music. I still think there is something novel and cool about owning an artists' latest CD. iTunes is a total scam and nobody should use it. Buying songs on iTunes gives artists the smallest amount of revenue for their work.
Trying to recall the additional things that I torrented. I've torrented a few Tool albums, but always went out and bought the album afterwards just because I like having the hard copy of the music as well. OH and Planet Earth, because I lent the box set to my ex girlfriend and never got it back. Along with my sanity. Can I torrent that?
|
On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy").
My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
|
On August 09 2012 03:03 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy"). My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
I can only tell you how it's in Germany:
Private vs public.
If it's a private party (friends, family) you dont have to pay. If it's public (sport club, ...) you have to pay. Amount of people is not that important (though it might be hard to explain a private 500person party  ).
A pw protected channel is probably enough for online usage as long as you dont distribute the pw on public forums (that is speculation though from my part)
|
On August 09 2012 03:03 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote:
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy"). My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
You're making money off your stream.
Copyright law is really vague and unclear. Remixes for example aren't clearly defined as legal or illegal for example.
Piracy is definitely illegal though. And streaming while listening to copyrighted music is also illegal. I dunno why companies haven't gone after streamers that hard yet do go after piracy as hard as they do. Maybe they don't really care about the infringement of their copyright as much as they care about what they view as loss of potential sales.
|
People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want.
This holds even if the product is considered to be priced "exploitively," which I find ridiculous. Media entertainment is not a necessity, and thus there should be no limit on what a company can charge for a service/product it produces. If you can't afford the product, that sucks, you don't get access to it. If you don't like the pricing, then don't buy it. But you aren't entitled by any means to having it anyways because you want the company's product, but don't like the company's pricing.
What I've seen in this thread is basically that producers should be at the mercy of donations from consumers if consumers don't like the pricing. "Oh, I ended up liking this one piece of work a lot, so I decided to buy it." It's up to the mercy of the consumer, who already has the product, to make a donation to the company for their work.
|
I cant really make up my mind on pirating. On the one hand free access to art, software and information has made the world a much better place and enriched countless lives. A kid can go get photoshop, flash designer, audio software etc and produce excellent free games and pictures for the world and himself to enjoy. He can avoid the pitfalls of shitty half assed products made by companies looking to use him. He can download stuff that he already bought, but lost or owns in a shoddy format. He can watch shows easier than sitting by his tv at a specific time being bombarded by lengthy annoying ads, and support the company in other ways like buying shirts, DVDs etc. He can download obscure hard to get elsewhere shit, become a fan and eventually make the company more money than if pirating never existed.
Or he can be a worthless douche and pirate anything and everything and make it a point to never support companies or artists financially in any way.
I do not believe anybody here falls exclusively in one of those categories, just as I do not believe anyone who would claim that pirating is exclusively good or bad. But for the most part, I believe it is a force for good. I do not like the idea of seeing the worlds greatest free library being torn down because of a knee jerk reaction from corporations having more to do with control and paranoia than preservation of profits (at least overall). The Internet is home to a cultural and artistic flowering unlike anything before seen, for all we denigrate it, and eliminating free access to tools, art and ideas will likely extinguish that.
I would love to see some studies on piratings overall impact on corporate profits, not just of CDs and the like, but taking extra factors into account like whether demand for other products, like t shirts and digital purchases was stimulated, etc. I suspect the results would be far different from what many corporatists here seem to assume. I will admit though, pirating as it currently exists is by no means the highly moral endeavor some of my comrades have duped themselves into believing it is.
|
On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want.
They can price their product at whatever price they want.
And if I can make 100% perfect copies of their product for no financial gain, I can do that too.
If they don't like that situation, they can go produce something non-copyable, like sweaters or tennis balls.
Piracy is sharing, not stealing. If I buy a book for $10, and then tell my friend what happened in the book, I've shared someone's copyrighted story.
If you don't like that situation, don't be in the story-selling business.
You don't have the right to sell me content and tell me what I can do with it. You only have the right to prohibit me selling or profiting from unauthorized copies, because that is commerce and commerce is and always has been legally regulated.
Legally regulating sharing is ridiculous.
By the way, I support going after MegaUpload. Kim Dotcom was knowingly making obscene profits off of unauthorized distribution of content, slapping ads on them.
But if I take a random CD from my collection, rip it to MP3s and make a torrent, that's completely non-commercial sharing and no one has any moral claim to any wrongdoing.
|
honestly i have run out of shit to download so now i don't really care anymore.
|
On August 09 2012 14:15 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote:
People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want. They can price their product at whatever price they want. And if I can make 100% perfect copies of their product for no financial gain, I can do that too. If they don't like that situation, they can go produce something non-copyable, like sweaters or tennis balls. Piracy is sharing, not stealing. If I buy a book for $10, and then tell my friend what happened in the book, I've shared someone's copyrighted story. If you don't like that situation, don't be in the story-selling business. You don't have the right to sell me content and tell me what I can do with it. You only have the right to prohibit me selling or profiting from unauthorized copies, because that is commerce and commerce is and always has been legally regulated. Legally regulating sharing is ridiculous. By the way, I support going after MegaUpload. Kim Dotcom was knowingly making obscene profits off of unauthorized distribution of content, slapping ads on them. But if I take a random CD from my collection, rip it to MP3s and make a torrent, that's completely non-commercial sharing and no one has any moral claim to any wrongdoing.
My god, you don't need to go over the basics of sharing. I understand what it is. The point is that legally regulating sharing is not ridiculous. And sharing isn't even the correct term. It's copying in this situation. Telling your friend what happened in the book is not illegal. Copying the book in its entirety and then giving a copy to your friend is what's illegal.
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
|
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born.
There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid.
|
United States2355 Posts
On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid.
If companies are shoving DRM down your throat and putting out a fucked up product don't buy it. If you pirate it, there is moral wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
