|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?
Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare.
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +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. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?
It does hurt profits, but it cannot be stopped. It's just not very significant compared to all the other sources of revenue.
|
I was so pissed when I heard about this a couple days ago... I relied on that site for my TV shows!!
|
On August 08 2012 10:01 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? 1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these. 2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media. 3. These things probably came about because of piracy.
Mostly in the US where Legal "cheap" and convenient sources are plentiful and the US has never quite had the piracy rates of south east asia or russia, or even most of europe to begin with.
|
On August 08 2012 12:31 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 10:01 Lightwip wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I am confused why people still pirate so much.
Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear)
Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? 1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these. 2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media. 3. These things probably came about because of piracy. Mostly in the US where Legal "cheap" and convenient sources are plentiful and the US has never quite had the piracy rates of south east asia or russia, or even most of europe to begin with.
Might have something to do with the fact that it's easier (read: possible) to buy a $50 game/movie/album with a $2500/month salary than a $40 game/movie/album with a $250/month salary...
|
On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
damn. guess i'll have to actually buy shit now.
LOL YA RITE
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal.
|
to quote phillip roth:
"america is going fascist"
torrents for me have always been about the spread of information and art for free. it is honestly a shame that my government is attacking such a thing. next thing we should do is ban libraries, god knows what we would do if we could read a book for free.
|
On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +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. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them? Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare.
When you go to your friends house to play a video game with him you are playing it for free. Without giving the developer who made it any money.
I think that in some cases piracy can actually help the entertainment industry. For example, in lots of countries there are
services that are unavailable to them (like Netflix) or entire television shows or films unavailable to them. Piracy eliminates that problem. And, in fact, piracy likely leads to sales by consumers that would never have been interested in a television show or a movie or a band before.
Going back to the example of a lent DVD, you might not have had any interest in it or any plans to purchase it. But upon watching it you really enjoyed it and you go out and buy it. Or after playing a game at a friend's house you go out and buy said game. This was basically my childhood. And there are countless things I wasn't interested in that I torrented and ended up purchasing later.
As I said earlier, I don't pirate that often. Pretty much only if I can't easily access media through legal means. I think that the entertainment industry should continue to expand on things like Hulu into new regions instead of throwing their money into a giant pit to lobby against piracy.
|
On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +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. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal.
uploaded it to*
Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison.
|
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.
Wow you really are an entitled person.
There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie.
|
While I am in favor of free file and media sharing and am pro free art, I love the new media approach, I think that companies should continue to pursue and increase alternatives to traditional media like Hulu and Grooveshark and Spotify. While maybe not as profitable as old models, it gives the consumer who would otherwise be reduced to piracy a compromise. Because of sources like these, my own pirating was reduced to very little, as it was even more convenient than pirating, even with 4 ad breaks of 2 ads per episode. The problem was when, just as they are doing now with Demonoid, they start abusing copyright law to crack down, and then even great services like the old Hulu become trash because certain companies don't want to buy into these new marketing techniques, or want to severely limit the content they make available on the site.
|
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
|
On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote:
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
I will acknowledge that it is morally wrong. But I do not care. Because on the scale of morally wrong I think that piracy is about even to breaking the speed limit.
|
On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Honestly, I only pirate when I can't find legal means to get something I like. For example, I pirated some TV shows because they weren't available on Hulu or my Netflix subscription. I don't have cable because it's ridiculously expensive where I live and 90%+ of what you're paying for you don't want/won't use. My first course of action was to check the network's website. No good. Then I check Amazon and even fucking iTunes store. They have it, except you can only play it on their players. No problem, except I need captions since I'm hard of hearing. No captions. Well fuck.
|
On August 08 2012 12:55 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE 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. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal. uploaded it to* Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison.
Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?
|
On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote:
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
I've already stated that I pirate when something I want to support gives me no simple way to do it. IE: HBO forcing me to buy ~$120 worth of cable to watch one show. I would love to be able to buy the episodes as they come out, or purchase a subscription to just HBOGO (which will hopefully be allowed before S3 comes out) but they don't give me those option. I'm excited about their product, I want to watch it when it comes out, I WANT to be a paying customer but they give me no viable options to do it. So I pirate it and 10 months later I buy the blu-ray box set to support the show.
|
On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
