|
On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:On February 29 2012 11:32 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
did you read the article that you linked?
"We show that the degree of availability and the number of illegal downloads increases rapidly with time."
"We find that the longer the lag between the US release and the local foreign release, the
lower the local foreign box office receipts. Importantly, this relationship is larger after
widespread adoption of BitTorrent than before: a movie released 8 weeks after the US premiere
has lower returns by about 22% in a given country in 2003-2004 but by nearly 40% in 2005-
2006."
"Using this 1.3% reduction per week as our estimate of the effect of
pre-release piracy on box office sales, we estimate that international box office returns in our
sample were at least 7% lower than they would have been in the absence of such piracy."
"We estimate that movies in our data
would have returned a total of nearly $3.52 billion if not for piracy, implying that piracy caused
films to lose $240 million in weekend box office returns in the non-US countries in our data"
to me it sounds like pre-release piracy do have affects on sales. In fact the the conclusion of the research give some solutions on how to "combat" piracy. such as shortening the time between US theatrical release and international release. Quite an obvious and straight forward solution; reduce the lag, less time and fewer sources for illegal downloads
Thanks for the source though, I was entertained reading them, thought it does run off alot of assumptions that I don't think they have addressed such as rising in alternative entertainment or slumps in global economy
edit: I didn't have much time to read sky is rising, but a quick glimpse tells me its about data on growth of music industry solely. Not extremely relevant to effects of piracy and intellectual properties. I'll read all of it tmr So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 07:11 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
if you're not a big company like valves or Blizzard where you can get enough supporters to offset piracy, you're in alot of trouble.
This is why its suicidal to try selling conventional software products in China, its practically losing money. Even most popular bands don't get most of their avenue from selling CDs there because piracy is extremely rampant, they get from advertisements / branding / live concerts etc
saying piracy doesn't affect sales is ignorant. Easiest comparison is to look at music distributors pre-internet age and now.
But that's just how it is now. Companies have to figure out other source of venue or fall behind. However rampart piracy doesn't mean that it's OK to pirate stuff. It is still unethical no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country.
That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not. However if you download enough music you can be sued for over a hundred thousand easily. It all depends on the quantity.
edit: There are cases where over $500,000 was payed for copyright infringement.
|
On February 29 2012 17:10 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:
[quote]
So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:
[quote]
How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country. That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not. However if you download enough music you can be sued for over a hundred thousand easily. It all depends on the quantity.
Yeah that's fucked up but it's still not jailtime. 
|
On February 29 2012 16:57 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 16:26 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 15:38 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10
[quote]
how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources. But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better. How does that argument even work? Just because there was free regular player streams or Assembly the same weekend it means that people didn't watch them and that MLG is worth paying for? Stupid to say the least, especially considering the person you're arguing against, tdt, is american and MLG was scheduled better for people living in the US. Still doesn't mean that he'd pay for it if there was no other SC2 related stuff online. Also look at IPL4. That's a tournament i'd be willing to pay 15-20 bucks for if i didn't already have a GSTL ticket. GSTL finals and IPL4 the same weekend with an actual crowd and, probably, on par or better production compared to MLG. if he watches it, he places some values in it. If he believes those values are not worth the price, then he doesn't get those values. You can't keep the values and not pay the price and uses "not worth it" as a justification Man this is some idealistic stuff. IF we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't watch if they didn't think it was worth the price, in this case it's 2012 and we're on the internet. People with nothing better to do WILL bypass (or in my case, just click the mlg link) simple security to watch stuff like this. If it was harder to do (like GOM for example) practially no one would even care to try and either pay or just not watch. It's not about justification, it's just the truth and it won't change even if you regurgitate the same old naive arguments about "you don't pay you shouldn't watch". We don't live in an ideal world and companies need to offer products/services that's worth buying, else people will pirate. Spotify is really popular, you know why? Because it's competitively priced and offers something much more accessible than downloading flac/mp3. Steam is popular because they offer a simple system for buying and managing your games, without having to download/seed/crack them. GOG.com is a popular site selling old games because they offer extras (soundtrack etc) and often solve stuff like compatability issues and other shit you need to fix yourself if you download.
you're missing the point. what we're arguing is whether it is ethical or not, which in itself is about upholding to ideals.
I could care less if he bypass or pirated/infringed copy rights. Just want to point out that it is not a "justifiable" cause
it is illegal however, just that there is not any active enforcement outside of targeting other large corporation or companies. Its one of the main reason they are trying to pass SOPA
|
On February 29 2012 17:10 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:
[quote]
So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:
[quote]
How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country. That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not.
Fighting that war would cost the companies more than any amount they think they lost due to piracy, and hurt their image in the process.
They're not letting it go because they're feeling generous.
|
On February 29 2012 17:34 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 17:10 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10
[quote]
how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country. That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not. Fighting that war would cost the companies more than any amount they think they lost due to piracy, and hurt their image in the process. They're not letting it go because they're feeling generous.
Thats why i put the point about if the company wants to go down that road. They know that would take too long so instead they just sue, which is much easier for them to do.
|
On February 29 2012 17:11 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 17:10 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:
[quote]
I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10
[quote]
how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country. That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not. However if you download enough music you can be sued for over a hundred thousand easily. It all depends on the quantity. Yeah that's fucked up but it's still not jailtime.
Tis true.
|
On February 29 2012 17:29 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 16:57 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:38 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 16:26 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 15:38 hunts wrote:On February 29 2012 15:30 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:09 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:
[quote]
If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything.
Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. That's called a copyright infringement sir. Yes even copying it and giving it to a friend is illegal AND unethical. You are stealing money from not only the place you bought it from, but also the composer and the record label etc. You are stealing money from at least 3 sources if not more when you give music to your friends like this. I'm not taking anything for which I would otherwise pay. I don't buy music so whether I hear some or not affects nobody let alone 3 sources. But you're still getting something for free that you would otherwise be forced to pay for. And the fact that you chose to still watch MLG by going around the paywall rather than watching one of the free tournaments like assembly shows that it's worth paying for, you're just cheap and don't want to pay for it, so now you're making excuses to try and feel better. How does that argument even work? Just because there was free regular player streams or Assembly the same weekend it means that people didn't watch them and that MLG is worth paying for? Stupid to say the least, especially considering the person you're arguing against, tdt, is american and MLG was scheduled better for people living in the US. Still doesn't mean that he'd pay for it if there was no other SC2 related stuff online. Also look at IPL4. That's a tournament i'd be willing to pay 15-20 bucks for if i didn't already have a GSTL ticket. GSTL finals and IPL4 the same weekend with an actual crowd and, probably, on par or better production compared to MLG. if he watches it, he places some values in it. If he believes those values are not worth the price, then he doesn't get those values. You can't keep the values and not pay the price and uses "not worth it" as a justification Man this is some idealistic stuff. IF we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't watch if they didn't think it was worth the price, in this case it's 2012 and we're on the internet. People with nothing better to do WILL bypass (or in my case, just click the mlg link) simple security to watch stuff like this. If it was harder to do (like GOM for example) practially no one would even care to try and either pay or just not watch. It's not about justification, it's just the truth and it won't change even if you regurgitate the same old naive arguments about "you don't pay you shouldn't watch". We don't live in an ideal world and companies need to offer products/services that's worth buying, else people will pirate. Spotify is really popular, you know why? Because it's competitively priced and offers something much more accessible than downloading flac/mp3. Steam is popular because they offer a simple system for buying and managing your games, without having to download/seed/crack them. GOG.com is a popular site selling old games because they offer extras (soundtrack etc) and often solve stuff like compatability issues and other shit you need to fix yourself if you download. you're missing the point. what we're arguing is whether it is ethical or not, which in itself is about upholding to ideals. I could care less if he bypass or pirated/infringed copy rights. Just want to point out that it is not a "justifiable" cause it is illegal however, just that there is not any active enforcement outside of targeting other large corporation or companies. Its one of the main reason they are trying to pass SOPA
In the modern day amongst people under 30 i'd say that piracy doesn't really require justification. It's part of young culture and it probably won't change. I've seen studies that have shown that people that pirate also are among the ones who purchase the most content. I do pirate but i've also spent about 5-10k on videogames since about 2001, i also own about 300-400 dvds. It's not a clear cut good/bad scenario and old copyright laws don't fit well with current consumers.
This is really sidetracking the thread though. Maybe create a topic about this in the general forum instead?
|
Didn't watch at all. GSL provides a better product at a better price point. I don't have time to watch both. Why would I pick the inferior product, given this situation?
|
What you need is a poll to see how many people were either too poor or had no means of buying the MLG ticket. This will be mostly teenagers i guess who dont have a credit/debit card.
Also, it would be interesting to see how many people who paid for the ticket thing the $20 is a large portion of their disposable income.
Personally, i managed to catch a couple of games on the MLG stream when it streamed for free (error by mlg). also managed to catch a couple on a restream.
But i will not pay for something that airs when im in bed. (I live in UK). and i dont think badly of the rest of europe from not paying as they are even further ahead time zone wise.
|
On February 29 2012 17:10 Ghost.573 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 17:03 karpo wrote:On February 29 2012 16:59 Ghost.573 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:27 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 15:06 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 15:01 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:52 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:44 tdt wrote:On February 29 2012 14:34 iky43210 wrote:On February 29 2012 14:33 Uninstall wrote:
[quote]
So basically MLG lost 1.3% because the VODs will be free after a week anyways. Doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The extra exposure they got from all the extra viewers likely outweighs the 1.3% reduction. I didn't even want to reply to this. Do you think at all? For the sake of humanity I go with that you're trolling and give you 3/10 On February 29 2012 14:29 tdt wrote:
[quote]
How is it unethical? how is it not unethical? you watch/take stuff that you don't own and belongs to someone else If I listen to a mp3 song it's still where I listened to it unchanged as if I never did and the guy who wrote it can still sing it any time. I didnt take anything. Is it unethical if you go to a friends house and he's got a piece of music playing, do you owe somebody for that? Try to think logically. I'm not exactly certain about music policy, but if your friend brought the CD (the rights to the music) or brought them digitally, he is allowed to listen and play the music to his friends. But he is not allowed to copy that music and give them to you, because the rights only pertain for his uses only. You are allowed to listen to anything you want from your friend, but you are not allowed to "own" them if you did not pay for it downloading contents, illegally watching streams etc without paying the owner for license use is pirating and unethical. Simple as that Well that might be law the music industry pushed through but there is nothing unethical about him copying it and giving it to his freinds. Law and ethics are sometimes totally different and/or unrelated. He would be taking nothing from song writer copying and giving to his freinds his copy. how is it not ethical for your friend to copy it and give them to you. The singers and producers worked hard to make his product, and you are taking the service without compensating them. Most people have pirated things at one point or another, but don't try to justify yourself into thinking that its not unethical. That's just shady I don't think you have full grasp of what are intellectual properties. When people sell you CD or software, they aren't selling you the physical copy, those have almost no worth at all. They're selling you the content AND the license for you and only you to use them If someone pirates they think thier work is worthless by definition. Worthless is that for which you will not pay. Grats you own a dictionary. Try taking this argument to a court of law and see where it gets you. My bet is on jail if you download music or anything else w/o paying for it. And my bet is that copyright infringement won't net you jailtime in any sane country. That depends on the amount you stole and if the company wants to wage that war or not. However if you download enough music you can be sued for over a hundred thousand easily. It all depends on the quantity. edit: There are cases where over $500,000 was payed for copyright infringement.
I don't know how music business got in the discussion here, but let me say:
The only ones who 'lost' money is the record labels, which are overrated anyways(not unnecessary though).
The legal music system is outdated and should be changed. Spotify (and Netflix for Movies or so I've heard) is the first best thing to have happened since file sharing became available. Hell, before last century, people didn't make money on inventing songs and recording them(on a piece of paper), but for shows/performances given with that music. And that's how it should be, you know Beyonce had a 110 Million profit off her last tour. Somehow, I dont feel sorry if she doesn't sell a lot of music suddenly. Smaller artists make money from performances and selling fan-items, not from selling CD's.
OT: I didn't watch MLG because of ROG, I like MLG but paying 20$ for something that lasts 3 days is ridiculous, hell maybe 10$ is even too much. Like I've said before: If you have to pay for every tournament from 5-20$ over the year, you'd have to pay about 200$-300$ a year to just watch SC2. That's way, way, WAY too much, even if it's a hobby of mine.
Besides that, most of the games are too late in the evening to watch. GSL airs at morning time here, which suits me way better
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
