EPTDemonoid shut down - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
No annoying discs that get damaged or lost. Maybe it sounds bad, but if I pay, I get less - so it feels like I'm getting screwed for being honest. When I really like something like GoT, I find myself buying the physical media, and since my place isn't huge, it just takes up space, so it ends up in one of my cardboard "storage boxes" in the storage room that's starting to look like a game of Tetris that went horribly wrong. If I rearrange it, maybe I can fit another 2-3 more boxes of shit in there. I could also download the digital version but with my download limit of 120GB per month, I can't just stream HD content from Amazon. I'd rather have a digital copy on my hard drives. With torrents, I can pick up compressed episodes in low quality, which is more convenient for me. Give me a good ISP which gives me unlimited or a large amount of bandwidth and a service that allows me to actually own the TV shows and movies that I want and allows me to store it on my hard drives, and then I'll do more business with them. Digital media that I OWN. There's also no DRM. I bought Max Payne 3 on Steam over a month ago and I've only been able to play it for like 2 hours before their platform decided that my activation was bad. I contacted Steam, they told me to contact Rockstar. I contacted Rockstar and they responded after 14 days - they had me take a bunch of screenshots of the game, my steam receipt, tried to give me a new product key which didn't work. Finally they decided to send me a disc copy in the mail. Monday this week, my ticket had been open for 22 days, they said "We will send you a new copy next week and it should arrive the week after." Props to Rockstar, they'll solve the issue - but if I had downloaded the game illegally like some of my friends have, I'd have played through it and I'd be done with it. So if people wonder why people still pirate stuff, well those are some of the reasons, whether or not you think it justifies anything. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On August 10 2012 20:43 yeint wrote: But it seems you don't understand what sharing and copying are. Telling your friend what happened is providing the content of the book to them. So is photocopying the book. The fidelity of information transfer does not change the moral argument either way. It may change the financial argument, though. I don't recognize this right they're claiming. There is nothing immoral about not-for-profit copying, and no amount of tautology will change that. When I pay for a creative work on a medium, I consider myself the owner, not the licensee. No law, or EULA, or international treaty signed by corrupt political whores will change that. Except I do understand what it is. No, telling your friend what happened is not the same. Providing a synposis is not an issue by either sides and should not be addressed. Even if you were to recite the entire book to a friend - no copying has taken place. Your friend does not have in his possession a copy of the book you speak of. This is the issue we're addressing, and your attempt to trivialize the difference is astoundingly inaccurate. The method of information transfer is crucial to the debate, and that's what's being addressed. Never in the past have methods of such information transfer been viable and commonplace, and never in the past has it been an issue. Because it is now, we have address whether or not it is a problem in society and thus it becomes a moral argument. If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. In fact, if there's no moral dilemma, why would there even be an issue if you were making a profit through illegally redistributing the product? If the original producer isn't entitled to revenues for people obtaining the product for personal use, why is it relevant if other people are making profits (to which they aren't entitled either - in fact, no one is entitled to it). In short, if you're arguing that a producer is entitled to zero revenue from its product, why is it suddenly entitled to revenue if someone else manages to redistribute it for a profit? Where is the inherent moral dilemma someone else is making money? And to take it one step further with a detailed example, imagine this. Mass Effect 3 was $60 retail, and someone else manages to copy and distribute it for only $10 and gets sales from only a specific group of consumers that "wouldn't have bought it for $60 anyways." That means there's no financial loss for the original producer, correct? So where's the issue? You considering yourself an owner is a ridiculous act of self-entitlement that I can only laugh at. The people that bitch about the corrupt and profiteering of corporations only use it as an excuse to justify their acts. When you purchase a license, you're basically signing a contract that says "hey, I'm going to give you $50 to use your product." You're then trying to say "nah, I know I just "agreed" to these terms saying I can obtain only a license your product for $50, but I think I should own it instead." Guess what, if they wanted to actually give you ownership of their product and give you complete ownership they wouldn't put a friggin' pricetag of $50 on it. But of course, you'll go a step further and rationalize that even if they were offering the total sale of the item to your possession for $50, they're still greedy corporate scumbags and you're entitled to it for free because of technological advancement allows you to do so without getting caught. If piracy is ever legalized, we'll witness the death of a great majority of media entertainment produced. It's only fear mongering by the government of repercussions at the moment that has prevented piracy from becoming an issue in the U.S., where all the profits are anyways. On August 11 2012 05:54 Djzapz wrote: Pirating stuff is oftentimes more convenient. No annoying discs that get damaged or lost. Maybe it sounds bad, but if I pay, I get less - so it feels like I'm getting screwed for being honest. When I really like something like GoT, I find myself buying the physical media, and since my place isn't huge, it just takes up space, so it ends up in one of my cardboard "storage boxes" in the storage room that's starting to look like a game of Tetris that went horribly wrong. If I rearrange it, maybe I can fit another 2-3 more boxes of shit in there. I could also download the digital version but with my download limit of 120GB per month, I can't just stream HD content from Amazon. I'd rather have a digital copy on my hard drives. With torrents, I can pick up compressed episodes in low quality, which is more convenient for me. Give me a good ISP which gives me unlimited or a large amount of bandwidth and a service that allows me to actually own the TV shows and movies that I want and allows me to store it on my hard drives, and then I'll do more business with them. Digital media that I OWN. There's also no DRM. I bought Max Payne 3 on Steam over a month ago and I've only been able to play it for like 2 hours before their platform decided that my activation was bad. I contacted Steam, they told me to contact Rockstar. I contacted Rockstar and they responded after 14 days - they had me take a bunch of screenshots of the game, my steam receipt, tried to give me a new product key which didn't work. Finally they decided to send me a disc copy in the mail. Monday this week, my ticket had been open for 22 days, they said "We will send you a new copy next week and it should arrive the week after." Props to Rockstar, they'll solve the issue - but if I had downloaded the game illegally like some of my friends have, I'd have played through it and I'd be done with it. So if people wonder why people still pirate stuff, well those are some of the reasons, whether or not you think it justifies anything. Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise. | ||
|
Roflhue
3 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On August 11 2012 06:04 FabledIntegral wrote: Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise. For games, that's reasonable and that's what I do for the ones I like. However (theoretically) if all the good public torrent sites got shut down and I no longer had that option, it would suck. I don't want to rely on Rockstar and big companies like them to be able to play my games when I want to. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 11 2012 18:38 Thorakh wrote: I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all. What are you trying to say, that piracy is hard work? | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On August 11 2012 19:02 starfries wrote: Ehh what...?What are you trying to say, that piracy is hard work? I'm saying that some products are only available to me through piracy. | ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
On August 11 2012 19:21 Thorakh wrote: Ehh what...? I'm saying that some products are only available to me through piracy. Ohh, gotcha | ||
|
MrMedic
Canada452 Posts
 | ||
|
Trasko
Sweden983 Posts
| ||
|
Unifex
United States68 Posts
But anyway demonoid sucked for movies and games, I went there for the amazing collection of ebooks/comics. If anyone knows another good spot feel free to PM me (4.0 ratio on demonoid) | ||
|
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise. You realize there are a LOT of games that steam doesn't have right? Fun fact: I pirated SC2 before I bought it and played the entire campaign before deciding to try online. I played very little BW and didn't get any beta action. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing. Don't you know what stealing even means? Because clearly it is not. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing. I don't either, it is stealing, its just easy as fuck and free. It makes perfect sense to do it. I have limited funds and want to "own" much more media than I can afford. So I steal digital copies of it and don't give a fuck about who doesn't receive revenues because of it. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact most people aren't comfortable with admitting they are doing something immoral. Taking someone's creations without paying them or the rightful owner for it is wrong. It's just way too easy not to do it. Yay rational behavior! | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On August 12 2012 01:34 Nizaris wrote: Don't you know what stealing even means? Because clearly it is not. I always found it funny how people are quick to argue semantics in this case, presenting legal definitions of what stealing is to prove their point. Why don't you guys just reclaim the word and be proud of what you're doing? No one seems to be distancing themselves from the word "piracy"; if you ask me, it would seem that there's more in common between violation of intellectual property rights and stealing than violation of intellectual property rights and criminal violence on the high seas. I don't either, it is stealing, its just easy as fuck and free. It makes perfect sense to do it. I have limited funds and want to "own" much more media than I can afford. So I steal digital copies of it and don't give a fuck about who doesn't receive revenues because of it. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact most people aren't comfortable with admitting they are doing something immoral. Taking someone's creations without paying them or the rightful owner for it is wrong. It's just way too easy not to do it. Yay rational behavior! See, this I can understand. Thank you, sir, for being truthful, or dare I say, frank! I'm kinda amazed at all the straight edges on this web site, must be nice having all that money. Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website. EDIT: It would appear that the word "piracy" has been used to mean copyright infringement for at least a few centuries. Still, I don't see how it is any less hyperbolic than "theft". | ||
|
Areon
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On August 12 2012 01:48 Warlock40 wrote: I always found it funny how people are quick to argue semantics in this case, presenting legal definitions of what stealing is to prove their point. Why don't you guys just reclaim the word and be proud of what you're doing? No one seems to be distancing themselves from the word "piracy"; if you ask me, it would seem that there's more in common between violation of intellectual property rights and stealing than violation of intellectual property rights and criminal violence on the high seas. See, this I can understand. Thank you, sir, for being truthful, or dare I say, frank! Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website. It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria. I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong. Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies. File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.) If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. | ||
| ||
