Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 17, 2009, 09:51:20 am
-
Ok not quite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm) but the pirate bay trial is finished in sweden and the founders were sentenced to a year in jail and a $4.5 million fine.
This sentence reeks of political pandering. Thoughts?
-
ONE year in jail......they should've just fined the bastards, or better yet, not have bothered. There are plenty of sites similar that'll keep running.
This sentence reeks of political pandering.
QFT
-
theyve asked for a bail out and will get a golden parachute and a real good retirement package ...... oooops thats bankers not humans
-
:(
-
the decision is not final
-
the decision is not final
Wasn't it the verdict? Or are you referring to the endless stream of appeals that are going to be hurled by the defendants.
-
I'd really like to see how the pirate community will react to this and/or if the appeal is rejected.
/me starts thinking of the "Bad Boys" song.
-
As Cory Doctorow said, something like this will only accelerate the development of an infrastructure that is even harder to police effectively.
-
$4,500,000!? .... .... .... :no:
-
I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha :D
-
I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha :D
Art thou an MPAA or prehaps and RIAA lobbyist?
-
Ok not quite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm) but the pirate bay trial is finished in sweden and the founders were sentenced to a year in jail and a $4.5 million fine.
This sentence reeks of political pandering. Thoughts?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,60951.msg1231623.html#msg1231623
only five hours ahead of you. I guess you're finally starting to catch up.
-
I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha :D
:wtf:
No use for a BABeam this time round, but still... :wtf:
-
I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha :D
:wtf:
No use for a BABeam this time round, but still... :wtf:
I say gridfire would be more effective :lol:
-
Are we all going to sit around and ignore what these guys do? :wtf:
We're just tiptoeing around the elephant in the room?
-
We're just tiptoeing around the elephant in the room?
Who? WeatherOp?
-
We're just tiptoeing around the elephant in the room?
Who? WeatherOp?
What people do on TPB
-
Are we all going to sit around and ignore what these guys do? :wtf:
Supplying us with a platform to share all sorts of culture in the digital society? Shame on them. That others use and have used it for illegally distributing other peoples works is perhaps not "right", but it is quite farfetched to find them guilty of contributing to it, when it really can't be said that they have urged anyone to do so. Have you even read their user policy where it says "don't do illegal stuff kthx"? I suppose feigning indignance is easier. Similar services of finding illegal material is search engines (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=en&hs=t85&q=blue+lion+filetype%3Atorrent&btnG=Search).
Part of the guilt came from them running an open tracker (a tracker where torrents don't have to be registered), many many of these torrents weren't/aren't searchable from the pirate bay. It can be analogued to a postal service or a roundabout. The post isn't responsible for what criminal acts you commit when sending drugs, nor does the transit department suffer from your speeding.
Miscarriage of justice, this might even be called. The verdict was leaked at least 12 hours before it was supposed to be released, which is also a cause of concern.
-
Yea you're right, these sites are mostly perfectly legal things being moved back and forth :rolleyes: These are in no way massive file sharing sites where the majority are illegal.
I just love how people will stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalala most of the traffic isn't being used to move ripped movies, games, songs and programs!"
Everyone knows this is full of stolen material, but since they support it, they just pretend it's not there (or a very small portion).
I can go on Pirate Bay right now and find MASSIVE amounts of movies, songs, games, programs. I can go get anything I want for my computer without ever paying a dime.
I fully expect this thread to go into how it's not really stealing, then how it is stealing but helps these companies that own the property, and then how it can't be stopped so we might as well let it go on.
-
Of course it's theft. That's not the point.
The point is that theft has provided a viable, risk-free, and more useful alternative to legitimate acquistion. It is, in a word, better. Indeed, it is vastly better, otherwise this massive theft-engine you scorn would not exist.
And this is an important lesson: the old methods are outmoded, dated, dying. The Pirate Bay is one of the people killing them. This verdict is one of the last gasps, the desperate final defense against the encroaching reality.
But reality will not, can not, be denied. Any effort to do so is inevitably doomed to failure and will do incalcuable harm. They do not have the dignity to come along quietly; they must rant and rave, unhinged, dangerous, against their demise. And that can only accelerate it.
-
It's better cause it's free.
I was wrong, we already entered the "You can't stop it" phase.
"Movies and songs and shows should be distributed free! I don't know how these people will turn a profit, but it won't be through the distribution of their product! That's mine now!"
This is really some good stuff.
-
Ok not quite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm) but the pirate bay trial is finished in sweden and the founders were sentenced to a year in jail and a $4.5 million fine.
This sentence reeks of political pandering. Thoughts?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,60951.msg1231623.html#msg1231623
only five hours ahead of you. I guess you're finally starting to catch up.
Bork you.
-
It's better cause it's free.
I was wrong, we already entered the "You can't stop it" phase.
"Movies and songs and shows should be distributed free! I don't know how these people will turn a profit, but it won't be through the distribution of their product! That's mine now!"
This is really some good stuff.
Of course it's free. Do you grasp the point yet?
And yes, you can't stop it, but that's not the point either.
This is about why it is unstoppable. This is capitalism in its purest form. Dog-eat-dog, kill or be killed. The Pirate Bay and its many cousins have developed a model which does the fundemental tenant of business, reach people, better than previous ones. Ordinarily, this is regarded as progress.
-
Of course it's free. Do you grasp the point yet?
Why yes, yes I have.
And yes, you can't stop it, but that's not the point either.
Yes they can, in ways you will not like.
This is about why it is unstoppable. This is capitalism in its purest form. Dog-eat-dog, kill or be killed. The Pirate Bay and its many cousins have developed a model which does the fundemental tenant of business, reach people, better than previous ones. Ordinarily, this is regarded as progress.
Not really. No price point, no competitor can fight "free".
They can't lower price to match that, increase quality.
Companies that own these products will do what they have to to make sure their property stays theirs. I think you may be unpleasantly surprised in the things they come up with to stop people from stealing things.
I'm not shocked that "theft" is the best way to acquire something.
-
I fully expect this thread to go into how it's not really stealing, then how it is stealing but helps these companies that own the property, and then how it can't be stopped so we might as well let it go on.
Well, fine, if it is stealing, how come they were charged with contributory copyright infringement and not contributory grand larceny? Because it's not theft, that's why. Theft is what most of the oligopolic organizations are doing. Have the "artists" who sued napster gotten any of their money yet? No, because RIAA and the other ********s stole it from them. That is trading one bully for another.
As for "can't compete with free", it is bull****. What they've been doing wrong is not giving you additional value for what you buy. DRM, as an example, is not additional value to something i buy. Otoh, it significantly lessens the value to me and many others. Spotify went more crappy after they implemented GRM, too, and I'm not even paying for it (hey, there's how you can compete with "free" - by ****ing being innovate ****ers instead of fossilised dinosaurs).
I can go on the google right now and find 10-20 times more illegal stuff. Effortlessly. I can also go on tpb and find a lot more "free" and legal stuff than illegal. It all depends on what you choose to look for.
-
Most of the things the oligopols have done is to find ways to alienate and buttrape their customers. IMO Sony products aren't even worth stealing or copyright infringing.
-
The problem is, everyone wants to punish the "greedy money grubbers" for butt raping them but they still actually want the stuff that the "greedy money grubbers" make.
If I want to "punish" someone, I avoid their stuff altogether. If more people actually did that, maybe you'd see a change in behavior, price point, DRM reliance...
Vote with your wallet. By not doing that, and perpetuating these "greedy money grubbers" belief that they make a valuable product by still feeding the (illegal) demand, you fuel the fire.
But that's unlikely, because the motivations of many are not some noble cause (the Pirate Bay guys may be "noble" or they may just be attention whores). The majority of the people I know simply do not want to pay for it, either because your poor, or its easy, or you'd rather spend the money on beer. Everything else is justification.
So you get these small minorities of people who are following some "Hacker code" where information should be free, etc, and droves of forumites who justify their own illegal actions with rheotoric.
Its stealing. Its offered for sale, and you didn't pay for it. They were prosecuted under copyright infringement because that is a special type of theft, and probably easier to prosecute and the penalties are probably less severe. Not all murderers are charged with murder, sometimes they get charged with lesser or different crimes. That's just basic litigator law.
You want to have it tried as theft, go out, start your own PB, get arrested and DEMAND you be charged with felony theft (or whatever the local equivalent is). See what your lawyers say.
-
Actually in many cases piracy actually helped things become popular and widely sold, starcraft is something that comes to mind. A great many people liked what they saw so they went out to buy it.
Something else to consider is that the vast majority of each CD sale doesn't actually go to the artist, it goes to the recording company. Until that changes, this will continue.
-
I suspect the sales of Starcraft had just as much to do with Battlenet as they did piracy, since so many people wanted in on the online action and couldn't because Blizzard kept suing people into oblivion who supported it. Maybe that's an argument? It sounds almost as silly as "so many people stole it and liked it, they decided to support a ridiculously litigious company and buy it after the fact."
You really believe that? Kinda rails against the starving artist argument... And the "starving artist" argument is a huge red herring, that's not why people don't pay for music and you know it and it has damn little to do with why people pirate games.
If a game developer or publisher has something you want, acquire it legally, if you protest something about what they are doing with it, don't give them a false sense of superiority just because you want to try it. That makes them think they have something worth selling. If its worth selling, its worth stealing, I believe is the saying. These publishers are taking the converse to heart.
-
people don't pay for music because they grew up with the radio, online distribution needs to be based on this model for piracy to go away. hulu is probably the best attempt at this point.
-
Well, fine, if it is stealing, how come they were charged with contributory copyright infringement and not contributory grand larceny? Because it's not theft, that's why. Theft is what most of the oligopolic organizations are doing. Have the "artists" who sued napster gotten any of their money yet? No, because RIAA and the other ********s stole it from them. That is trading one bully for another.
I don't mean the guys who run it. I mean the thousands of people who download stuff.
As for "can't compete with free", it is bull****. What they've been doing wrong is not giving you additional value for what you buy. DRM, as an example, is not additional value to something i buy. Otoh, it significantly lessens the value to me and many others. Spotify went more crappy after they implemented GRM, too, and I'm not even paying for it (hey, there's how you can compete with "free" - by ****ing being innovate ****ers instead of fossilised dinosaurs).
So someone sets a price for a product or service. You don't like the price, so you steal it instead? Do you do that with everything?
I'm just unaware what the value threshold is that makes it ok to steal stuff.
I can go on the google right now and find 10-20 times more illegal stuff. Effortlessly. I can also go on tpb and find a lot more "free" and legal stuff than illegal. It all depends on what you choose to look for.
I'm almost positive I can find every "mainstream" movie, song, tv show, program, game etc etc etc. I would love to know what overshadows the massive amounts of data of illegal stuff. Almost everything that is sold and can be put on a computer is there.
-
people don't pay for music because they grew up with the radio, online distribution needs to be based on this model for piracy to go away. hulu is probably the best attempt at this point.
You'll agree there is a slight difference between recording songs off the radio and shows on a DVR and the wholesale ripping of these items for massive P2P distribution.
I'm sure there is a better way of getting it out there, but that doesn't justify this amount of theft.
-
You'll agree there is a slight difference between recording songs off the radio and shows on a DVR and the wholesale ripping of these items for massive P2P distribution.
I'm sure there is a better way of getting it out there, but that doesn't justify this amount of theft.
well there is different technology involved, but from the consumer's point of view no, there is no difference.
-
You'll agree there is a slight difference between recording songs off the radio and shows on a DVR and the wholesale ripping of these items for massive P2P distribution.
I'm sure there is a better way of getting it out there, but that doesn't justify this amount of theft.
well there is different technology involved, but from the consumer's point of view no, there is no difference.
I can tell the difference between watching a show on TV and recording it and downloading the entire series online. I don't think I'm super smart.
I know you don't think people can't notice a difference.
-
I don't mean the guys who run it. I mean the thousands of people who download stuff.
Whos crimes was barely talked about in this trial. To be able to claim contribution to a crime, there are quite a few conditions that needs to be met. Proof that a crime has been commited, proof that the contributors were contributing, and proof that they did this intentionally. And like I've previously said and you've conveniently chosen to ignore, one of them were on trial on accounts of being the owner of the owner of the host they rented bandwidth and rack space from and he'd had dinner with two of the others a couple of times as well as lent them some money for a couple of servers once. Not much more than that. Is that enough for a year of prison and SEK 30 million? Not really, imo.
So someone sets a price for a product or service. You don't like the price, so you steal it instead? Do you do that with everything?
That's funny coming from you. Really. And really, when did I say I even commit copyright infringement? I'm more or less a GNU taliban. The few pieces of software I have that isn't free and open source is bought or donated to me. I also have a television set, I pay the license on that, but frankly I don't care much for what's on it. I have an extensive music collection as well, but unfortunately, yes, I have some "illegal" music, as doujinshi produced speedcore is pretty damn hard to come by unless you visit conventions in japan.
I'm just unaware what the value threshold is that makes it ok to steal stuff.
Well, I guess when there's a community of people, the treshold to try deleting it is pretty damn low for you, but I guess I'll answer this for you too. The treshold is when the mafiosos pretending to represent the artists install rootkits on your computer should you dare want to play the audio cd you bought on it. The treshold is when you buy or rent a dvd and first thing when you put it in have to live through ten minutes of propaganda on how you wouldn't shoot a policeman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964MLq1db4s) and trailers. The treshold is when author organisations get pissed at the ****ing kindle for it having a ****ing text to speech feature (which was quite useful to people with visual handicaps, but not so much for most else as TTS isn't quite at same-as-actual-person-reading yet).
When you alienate your presumptive customers, call them thieves and sell them crippled goods, is it odd that they start looking for other ways to consume culture? I dare say that it is not. When you can download a DRM free album without any risk of rootkits, when you can download a dvd image without the trailers and ****, when you can download a ****ing book off the internet and have microsoft sam or whatever read it to you, the answer is not to lube your cock up and keep asking your former customers to bend over. The answer is to push things forward. Move the **** into the new era of cultural consumption.
I'm almost positive I can find every "mainstream" movie, song, tv show, program, game etc etc etc. I would love to know what overshadows the massive amounts of data of illegal stuff. Almost everything that is sold and can be put on a computer is there.
Yes, but you're missing the ****ing point again. I'll agree that most things on the top lists may or may not be offered by someone who didn't have the right to, but I challenge you to check each and every torrent passing through the worlds largest open tracker. Open, as in no registration required. It needn't even show up at the thepiratebay.org site. But I already said that and you conveniently chose to ignore that too.
-
Whos crimes was barely talked about in this trial. To be able to claim contribution to a crime, there are quite a few conditions that needs to be met. Proof that a crime has been commited, proof that the contributors were contributing, and proof that they did this intentionally. And like I've previously said and you've conveniently chosen to ignore, one of them were on trial on accounts of being the owner of the owner of the host they rented bandwidth and rack space from and he'd had dinner with two of the others a couple of times as well as lent them some money for a couple of servers once. Not much more than that. Is that enough for a year of prison and SEK 30 million? Not really, imo.
Basically you're telling me these guys ran these servers that are wildly popular, have massive amounts of data going back and forth, can look at any moment and see tons of illegal stuff and just flat out had no idea what was going on?
That's funny coming from you. Really. And really, when did I say I even commit copyright infringement? I'm more or less a GNU taliban. The few pieces of software I have that isn't free and open source is bought or donated to me. I also have a television set, I pay the license on that, but frankly I don't care much for what's on it. I have an extensive music collection as well, but unfortunately, yes, I have some "illegal" music, as doujinshi produced speedcore is pretty damn hard to come by unless you visit conventions in japan.
Well why don't you? You've clearly shown me it's an ok practice. Why don't you engage in it? What's stopping you from downloading all these things that are way overvalued?
Well, I guess when there's a community of people, the treshold to try deleting it is pretty damn low for you, but I guess I'll answer this for you too. The treshold is when the mafiosos pretending to represent the artists install rootkits on your computer should you dare want to play the audio cd you bought on it. The treshold is when you buy or rent a dvd and first thing when you put it in have to live through ten minutes of propaganda on how you wouldn't shoot a policeman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=964MLq1db4s) and trailers. The treshold is when author organisations get pissed at the ****ing kindle for it having a ****ing text to speech feature (which was quite useful to people with visual handicaps, but not so much for most else as TTS isn't quite at same-as-actual-person-reading yet).
Firstly, I only do stuff on what I owned lock, stock and barrel. Did you meet him? I did when I bought it. Paid cash too, and credit for everything after. Leave it alone now.
Secondly, you don't like the people? Is that your answer? They're not nice to you? With THEIR product?
"They were mean to me and didn't do what I want, so I stole it"
When you alienate your presumptive customers, call them thieves and sell them crippled goods, is it odd that they start looking for other ways to consume culture? I dare say that it is not. When you can download a DRM free album without any risk of rootkits, when you can download a dvd image without the trailers and ****, when you can download a ****ing book off the internet and have microsoft sam or whatever read it to you, the answer is not to lube your cock up and keep asking your former customers to bend over. The answer is to push things forward. Move the **** into the new era of cultural consumption.
I like how you link their product with culture. I'm not taking songs, or movies or shows that are produced and owned and SOLD by a company, I'm consuming culture!
Your argument boils down to "I don't like them, but I like their product, so I'm just going to take it. It's their fault for not getting on my good side."
Yes, but you're missing the ****ing point again. I'll agree that most things on the top lists may or may not be offered by someone who didn't have the right to, but I challenge you to check each and every torrent passing through the worlds largest open tracker. Open, as in no registration required. It needn't even show up at the thepiratebay.org site. But I already said that and you conveniently chose to ignore that too.
So what? They set up a system that's impossible to manage, so... oh well? Are you implying the guys who run the site are so inept they can't do anything?
That's not really helping the case.
-
you are obviously uninterested in understanding what I'm telling you. well played.
as for why I don't, I actually do. I've imported quite a few items from japan. doesn't make the things I miss easier to come by in my home country, though. Is it really right that archaic interest organizations that since long do not work in the best interest of those they claim to represent should be able to sustain themselves even after they've played out their role? It is not that the music industry is doing bad, it's that the interest groups representing the industry is going bad that has been the main issue for them. The de facto monopolistic chain of cinematic theatres over here said that last year was their most profitable one ever. This including back in the '70s when people went to the movies every ****ing day of the week. I'm sure that's a market in crisis right there. The CEO wants to ban the internet. He's said so in interviews.
Ban. The. Internet.
-
Ah yes, taking your ball and going home. I have truly been bested here. I guess people weren't stealing tons of stuff after all.
-
if I have the skills and have purchased the materials, would you find anything wrong with me building my own car by looking at an existing one?
-
if I have the skills and have purchased the materials, would you find anything wrong with me building my own car by looking at an existing one?
You take the plans for movies, songs and programs? :wtf: When I see stuff on torrents, I don't normally have to build them afterward.
The old "It's not a physical object" isn't going to fly either.
-
so, is that a yes or a no, I make a car that is physically identical to an existing one, am I a pirate?
funny how you doge the argument right after berating someone for 'taking their ball and leaving'.
-
so, is that a yes or a no, I make a car that is physically identical to an existing one, am I a pirate?
funny how you doge the argument right after berating someone for 'taking their ball and leaving'.
You haven't clarified anything. Does whoever you're taking it from have the rights to that plan?
Is it a freely distributed plan, designed for people to make their own?
-
it is a Ford Christer Labaron, the person who owns it bought it from a dealership. I am a survivalist so I just happen to own my own smelting facility in my back yard and am able to synthesize the plastics used using my phd in organic chemistry and a petroleum refinery I built out of old steal drums.
no plans are involved I am taking the finished product and item by item duplicating it's physical properties and form.
-
it is a Ford Christer Labaron, the person who owns it bought it from a dealership. I am a survivalist so I just happen to own my own smelting facility in my back yard and am able to synthesize the plastics used using my phd in organic chemistry and a petroleum refinery I built out of old steal drums.
no plans are involved I am taking the finished product and item by item duplicating it's physical properties and form.
Then yes, you would be stealing that design from Ford.
I'm kinda guessing this is the same reason car companies don't produce another companies car.
"Why are you making our car?"
"It's not yours. It's mine. I made it."
"Yea, but that's our car. We make that."
"Oh no, I just took the plans. I took the work you did to design and plan it. I'm not going to actually PAY you, I'm just going to benefit from your work."
I can't possibly see what someone would have against that.
It's the new 2010 Toyota Thunderbird!
-
Seeing as you missed my edit;
Is it really right that archaic interest organizations that since long do not work in the best interest of those they claim to represent should be able to sustain themselves even after they've played out their role? It is not that the music industry is doing bad, it's that the interest groups representing the industry is going bad that has been the main issue for them. The de facto monopolistic chain of cinematic theatres over here said that last year was their most profitable one ever. This including back in the '70s when people went to the movies every ****ing day of the week. I'm sure that's a market in crisis right there. The CEO wants to ban the internet. He's said so in interviews.
Ban. The. Internet.
-
OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.
is this piracy?
-
Seeing as you missed my edit;
Is it really right that archaic interest organizations that since long do not work in the best interest of those they claim to represent should be able to sustain themselves even after they've played out their role?
I've never had a problem buying a CD, movie, video game or program. Not only do they exist in physical copies I can purchase at a store, but they also exist quite a few times in digital copies online.
What best interest are they not working towards? Why do you get to to determine what someone does with their property?
They own the songs, movies, games, whatever. They can lock them up like the Shroud of Turin for all I care. Poor business model? Absolutely.
The best way to tell them how to distribute their product is through your wallet, by not buying it. Instead you're telling them their product is highly desired by you. So much so you're willing to break the law to get it.
It is not that the music industry is doing bad, it's that the interest groups representing the industry is going bad that has been the main issue for them. The de facto monopolistic chain of cinematic theatres over here said that last year was their most profitable one ever. This including back in the '70s when people went to the movies every ****ing day of the week. I'm sure that's a market in crisis right there. The CEO wants to ban the internet. He's said so in interviews.
Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?
But to the point I think you're trying to make (I hope so) I haven't been to the movies in forever. I buy DVDs when I feel like it (which is rare) or I watch it on TV.
Movies, DVD, TV... how many more ways of access to these things do you want?
I don't understand what the argument here is... that you have to go through the person who owns the rights to the movies to see it?
I don't get the solution, are you just mad they're expensive?
A company makes a movie, song, whatever. How do you propose they distribute this other than how they've done so and still turn a profit. What other method exists than showing it to you, giving you a disk of it or sending you a file?
-
Ban. The. Internet.
What. The. ****. :eek2:
-
OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.
is this piracy?
I am not a lawyer, but, apart from the fact that you are constructing a straw man, the legal answer is "maybe."
Depends on how close the end product is, and I am not sure that things like the DMCA applies to alternators.
Physical things that are more often governed by patent law, and violations of patent usually seem to require that you then sell said item.
The body of the car in your earlier example would be probably a violation a combination of patent and trademark laws. It certainly would be if Toyota built a Tbird.
Small scale fabrication usually doesn't seem to trigger violation of law. It may be technically illegal. You've not deprived Ford of a sale for the alternator because you swiped one from the shop. You've built a one off, and you probably would be protected by the same things that protect the aftermarket accessory industry. Chances are good you won't manufacture an identical copy, and better that you won't then mass produce it.
-
OK then, lets say my friend has a problem with his car, the alternator has gone out, he knows I can build just about anything, so he has it toed to my house, and I make a new alternator by looking at the broken one and figuring out what the original one looked like. the only other option is buying a new alternator from Ford.
is this piracy?
Is it an exact copy of the alternator? Does Ford sell them? (I don't think Ford makes those, but ok)
I'll give you my own example. You design your own car. It's frikkin sweet. Some guy from Toyota walks by and says "Sweet car. We're gonna make it and sell it and make millions. You? Oh we just took the plan, not your actual car."
Before you jump in and say "But they're making a profit!" so are you.
You're saving money by not paying them. You're getting something of value but aren't paying for the work.
I am going on the assumption these are exact copies, as stated in the first example.
-
Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?
Yeah, sure, but how about having more than one chain of competing cinemas, perhaps?
-
Of course they're monopolistic. Where else are you going to see a movie in a theater... other than a theater? Are you really telling me movie theaters have a monopoly on places to see a movie... in a theater?
Yeah, sure, but how about having more than one chain of competing cinemas, perhaps?
Ok maybe I don't know enough about cinemas as everyone else (entirely possible, I'm not a genius) but I see different movie theaters all the time. Are you saying all movie theaters are owned by one company? Why doesn't someone just make competing theaters?
-
yes, exact copies, I'm really really good at makeing stuff.
im my example, I am not makeing a profit, in fact I'm probably losing money because I never said my friend was going to repay me for materials. if I sell the car then you might have a point, but at this point it is only personal usage.
-
I don't get the solution, are you just mad they're expensive?
What? I'm arguing that it's not competing with free with an equal product. I'm arguing that they're trying to compete with in many cases a product that is far inferior in many ways. Most people I know, myself included, has no problem with paying for other peoples works. We all love artists, film makers and authors here.
I do however, and I've tried to make you see this point several times now, object to the artists, film makers, authors and other culture workers being misrepresented by their interest organizations. The main problem isn't really finding buyers, nor is it really piracy that is the problem (outside of the somalian coast and so on), it's refusing to see the possibilites of new technology and instead seeing the customers as thieves.
Were I interested in justifying copyright infringement, I'd've used completely different rhetorics. Indignance over how it's theft really doesn't work, because it's not about stealing or infringing copyright. It's about how the cultural sector fails time again to adapt.
Stone platters are killing live musicians, radio is killing records, cassette tapes are killing records and radio, video killed the radio star, youtube kills music channels, libraries kills story tellers, vhs kills the movies (plus vhs lets more than one person watch at the same time while only paying once, this argument was even used against a prototype video cassette that could only be watched once).
Funnily enough, film industry doesn't seem to have had a problem with reselling us the same stuff over and over when changing formats from vhs->dvd and dvd->bluray. This is however a cause for decline for the music industry, as people are unlikely to buy a digital copy from them if they already have it on cd and can rip it to their hard drives instead.
And as I said before, there are some initiatives I applaud. Like spotify. It's hella ****ing awesome in many ways. In others, it's unfortunate that the record companies are being dicks and demanding geographical restrictions management on it (like there are even some albums where I can listen to half of the tracks but the others are redded out. wtfisthataboutreally?).
-
What? I'm arguing that it's not competing with free with an equal product. I'm arguing that they're trying to compete with in many cases a product that is far inferior in many ways. Most people I know, myself included, has no problem with paying for other peoples works. We all love artists, film makers and authors here.
I do however, and I've tried to make you see this point several times now, object to the artists, film makers, authors and other culture workers being misrepresented by their interest organizations. The main problem isn't really finding buyers, nor is it really piracy that is the problem (outside of the somalian coast and so on), it's refusing to see the possibilites of new technology and instead seeing the customers as thieves.
Were I interested in justifying copyright infringement, I'd've used completely different rhetorics. Indignance over how it's theft really doesn't work, because it's not about stealing or infringing copyright. It's about how the cultural sector fails time again to adapt.
Stone platters are killing live musicians, radio is killing records, cassette tapes are killing records and radio, video killed the radio star, youtube kills music channels, libraries kills story tellers, vhs kills the movies (plus vhs lets more than one person watch at the same time while only paying once, this argument was even used against a prototype video cassette that could only be watched once).
Funnily enough, film industry doesn't seem to have had a problem with reselling us the same stuff over and over when changing formats from vhs->dvd and dvd->bluray. This is however a cause for decline for the music industry, as people are unlikely to buy a digital copy from them if they already have it on cd and can rip it to their hard drives instead.
And as I said before, there are some initiatives I applaud. Like spotify. It's hella ****ing awesome in many ways. In others, it's unfortunate that the record companies are being dicks and demanding geographical restrictions management on it (like there are even some albums where I can listen to half of the tracks but the others are redded out. wtfisthataboutreally?).
I understand literally the words coming out of your mouth but the argument itself is so disconnected it makes no sense. I'm trying to piece together the parts you're saying.
You're saying that these music companies (and I suppose movie companies etc etc) misrepresent their clients (Who I might add almost surely signed a formal contract on all this)? Ok, the solution is simple. If these artists are always getting the shaft in terms of how these companies work... THEY SHOULD STOP WORKING WITH THEM.
You're acting like artists are children that don't sign contracts (and fail to resign all the time). Why aren't these artists revolting against these companies and joining other ones that DO operate in a way that you feel is the best for this century or whatever?
Do you really think the piracy in these areas is going to help these artists? You're increasing their popularity and lowering their sales.
Is it entirely possible that most of them just don't care and are happy with the companies they are with? I don't understand why it's YOUR responsibility to do some civil disobedience to show these artists they're part of the machine. Why isn't it the artists responsibility to do what's best for their work?
-
yes, exact copies, I'm really really good at makeing stuff.
im my example, I am not makeing a profit, in fact I'm probably losing money because I never said my friend was going to repay me for materials. if I sell the car then you might have a point, but at this point it is only personal usage.
But you didn't buy, so you saved money by making an exact copy of a product. I KNOW you know why a product costs more than just parts and labor combined.
The argument is still having trouble following. How are you possibly losing money downloading a video or song for free?
You're getting the benefit of planning, designing, construction, testing, retesting, production, marketing and distribution but you're not giving this company anything in return.
You're getting the result of their work, that has value. You're not giving anything back.
-
I'll go with my how many times do I have to pay for something before I own a copy of it stance: Let's take a Zeppelin song.
Bought the 8-track
Bought the Album.
Bought the a mix cassette with it on.
Bought the CD
Bought the box set
so now i've alreay paid for it 5 times
So now lets get to the real costs:
Played it on the Jukebox in the bar I don't know how many times
Listened to advertisements to hear it played on the radio
Have DirecTV which includes XM satellite radio that I pay for every month and part of that I'm sure goes to XM and back to royalties.
Then there are the things you don't think about:
It's used in a movie that you pay to see/buy/rent/etc
It's use on a TV show that you pay for by watching commercials
It's used in those commercials
And on top of all that if you want to listen to it on your computer they want you to by the MP3 instead of ripping it?
Then they want you to by the ringtone for you phone?
Get a new phone? Can't take that ringtone with you have to buy it again.
When does it stop? How much are they milking us for?
-
saveing money does not equal makeing money.
-
I'll go with my how many times do I have to pay for something before I own a copy of it stance: Let's take a Zeppelin song.
Bought the 8-track
Bought the Album.
Bought the a mix cassette with it on.
Bought the CD
Bought the box set
so now i've alreay paid for it 5 times
So? How is that their fault?
Why did you buy it again after you bought the 8-track? A new format? I don't really see how that's a music companies fault. Like why don't they just provide you with free means of listening to a song on all new formats? Really?
You gonna like save receipts or something?
So now lets get to the real costs:
Played it on the Jukebox in the bar I don't know how many times
Listened to advertisements to hear it played on the radio
Have DirecTV which includes XM satellite radio that I pay for every month and part of that I'm sure goes to XM and back to royalties.
Then there are the things you don't think about:
It's used in a movie that you pay to see/buy/rent/etc
It's use on a TV show that you pay for by watching commercials
It's used in those commercials
And on top of all that if you want to listen to it on your computer they want you to by the MP3 instead of ripping it?
Then they want you to by the ringtone for you phone?
Get a new phone? Can't take that ringtone with you have to buy it again.
When does it stop? How much are they milking us for?
Don't they have ways for people to purchase rights to a song to use it how they see fit (like you're asking)?
-
saveing money does not equal makeing money.
Ok fine, your net value has gone up.
Your worth, plus the value of one DVD.
-
if I never sell the DVD though I can not make money off it.
-
if I never sell the DVD though I can not make money off it.
You're getting the value of a DVD without having given any money for it.
Do you know objects can be worth money even if they are never sold? (Paintings, for instance)
-
I bought the DVD, it was in a spindle of 100.
better yet, what if I never burn it, just watch it once or twice then delete it because it's takeing up too much space
-
I bought the DVD, it was in a spindle of 100.
better yet, what if I never burn it, just watch it once or twice then delete it because it's takeing up too much space
It still has a value.
I buy a DVD, watch it and throw it away. It had a value while I had it.
The work is what has the value. That's why DVDs with movies on them are worth more than blanks. The work itself has value.
People sell it, buy it, own it.
-
Don't they have ways for people to purchase rights to a song to use it how they see fit (like you're asking)?
No, they want to milk you for all the money they can. And this is why this entire argument on piracy is flawed, both sides try to portray themselves as the "good guys" then rip each other off.
Music: moving/copying the data is illegal no mater what. (stuff like ripping the music from disk to Itunes) (or in reverse)
Movies: Same thing
Games: Buying a "license" to "install" the game for personal use X times. (this is subverted by pirates disabling this making an easier to get/use product: See Spore) (also, some games don't have this.)
all in all, both sides just want the other to ether die or give stuff for free.
-
No, they want to milk you for all the money they can. And this is why this entire argument on piracy is flawed, both sides try to portray themselves as the "good guys" then rip each other off.
Songs cannot be purchased where the user has to pay royalties every time they use it? Really? I just made that up?
Music: moving/copying the data is illegal no mater what. (stuff like ripping the music from disk to Itunes) (or in reverse)
Movies: Same thing
Games: Buying a "license" to "install" the game for personal use X times. (this is subverted by pirates disabling this making an easier to get/use product: See Spore) (also, some games don't have this.)
all in all, both sides just want the other to ether die or give stuff for free.
You're not showing why these actions aren't in the owners best interest?
You want to pay a small one time fee and be able to have access to that work at any time, on any medium, forever and ever and ever? That's never going to happen. No company is going to provide you, for free, the means of putting a work you bought 30 years ago on a new format because you like it better.
-
I understand literally the words coming out of your mouth but the argument itself is so disconnected it makes no sense. I'm trying to piece together the parts you're saying.
You're saying that these music companies (and I suppose movie companies etc etc) misrepresent their clients (Who I might add almost surely signed a formal contract on all this)? Ok, the solution is simple. If these artists are always getting the shaft in terms of how these companies work... THEY SHOULD STOP WORKING WITH THEM.
You're acting like artists are children that don't sign contracts (and fail to resign all the time). Why aren't these artists revolting against these companies and joining other ones that DO operate in a way that you feel is the best for this century or whatever?
Do you really think the piracy in these areas is going to help these artists? You're increasing their popularity and lowering their sales.
Is it entirely possible that most of them just don't care and are happy with the companies they are with? I don't understand why it's YOUR responsibility to do some civil disobedience to show these artists they're part of the machine. Why isn't it the artists responsibility to do what's best for their work?
Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.
And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.
Since 1978, the law was changed so that copyright lasted until a certain number of years after the author's death. So not only did the author never outlive the copyright, but the author's dependents could continue to derive income from it for some time.
Also, copyright began, not when the work was listed with the Library of Congress, but rather from the moment of creation.
But there were loopholes. If you wrote something as an employee of a company that paid you a salary for creating it, then your writing was a "work made for hire" and the copyright belonged to the company. You had no rights.
Here's where the ugly stuff begins. A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. It was basically highway robbery -- the companies demanded that either the writers sign their names to a lie and give up all their rights, or the company wouldn't publish it.
Only a few of us were stubborn enough to refuse to sign work for hire contracts. It was an expensive moral quibble, but I have real objections to perjuring myself and pretending that I was hired by a company when in fact I never was. If I took all the risks and wrote something on spec, then the copyright should belong to me. I'd license them to do whatever was needed, but I wouldn't, in effect, declare them to be the author of my work.
Who Are the Thieves in This House?
So it's pretty hilarious to hear record company executives and movie studio executives get all righteous about copyright. They've been manipulating copyright laws for years, and all the manipulations were designed to steal everything they could from the actual creators of the work.
Do you think these companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs and DVDs?
That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.
Basically you're telling me these guys ran these servers that are wildly popular, have massive amounts of data going back and forth, can look at any moment and see tons of illegal stuff and just flat out had no idea what was going on?
So you're saying that just because they provide a service that might make it easy to download illegal material, they have to contribute an enormous expenditure to police the traffic? To identify all the illegal downloads and them shut down? And secondly, how on earth would they do it? By looking at filenames? Are you that naive? To do so with any hope of effectiveness would require turning download software into spyware. I dare you to say that would be ok. I double dog dare you.
See, your arguments look good so long as you delete any uncomfortable facts and implications.
-
I guess we need to make cars illegal if they can be used to transport drugs across the border, unless the carmakers pony up the cash for border patrol.
-
That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.
Firstly, I have no idea why him being a conservative has anything to do with it.
Secondly, he most certainly agrees that these companies do own the rights to the works.
Thirdly, he admits that an artist is not forced to work with these companies, but should if they expect a grand paycheck.
This gives no contradictory evidence to anything I've said. Why isn't some company coming in and setting up rules that are more favorable to artists? Clearly if all the artists hate it, it should be a no brainer. Right?
So you're saying that just because they provide a service that might make it easy to download illegal material, they have to contribute an enormous expenditure to police the traffic? To identify all the illegal downloads and them shut down? I guess we need to make cars illegal if they can be used to transport drugs across the border. and Secondly, how on earth would they do it? By looking at filenames? Are you that naive? To do so with an hope of effectiveness would require turning download software into spyware.
See, your arguments look good so long as you delete any uncomfortable facts and implications.
To answer the first questions, yes and yes.
Secondly, those same cars ARE policed (by police no less) all the time.
How would it be done? I'll take a stab. Forced registration of users possibly by fee. All seeded material must be reviewed and checked off as legal. Any illegal material should be deleted. Kinda like how... I dunno, almost everyone else does it.
Wait, that's not the free, anything goes file sharing? Exactly.
They created the site. No one made them do it. They picked the rules they wanted to operate by. That way leads to massive amounts of theft. Left unchecked that could lead to a change by force of law. One I'm sure people won't approve of.
You guys seem to think if you keep stealing stuff hand over fist eventually these companies that spend billions on these works are just gonna go "Ok you win, have it all for free".
-
ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?
-
ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?
Does the user rights given when purchased give the owner rights to show his movie for others for free? There you go. You don't get to take it home with you when he's done.
If the user rights say you and only you can watch this, then showing it to other people probably is wrong. But you or I don't get to decide the rules, the owner of the work does.
-
That was written by Orson Scott Card, who is as conservative a political writer as they come. Do you honestly think artists have any other choice than to get a ****ty deal? That's why its called a monopoly.
Firstly, I have no idea why him being a conservative has anything to do with it.
Secondly, he most certainly agrees that these companies do own the rights to the works.
Thirdly, he admits that an artist is not forced to work with these companies, but should if they expect a grand paycheck.
This gives no contradictory evidence to anything I've said. Why isn't some company coming in and setting up rules that are more favorable to artists? Clearly if all the artists hate it, it should be a no brainer. Right?
Cause the RIAA and MPAA is a grand alliance of all the big companies to set monolithic standards and practices, so IT'S THE ONLY ****ING GAME IN TOWN. Because if you want any money at all you'll have to commit perjury and say they the company employed you when it didn't. Legally, sure, it's the companies right to do whatever the **** they want. But is what they've done remotely moral or ethical? Just please, stop pretending that artist-publisher agreements are remotely fair to the artists. Argue on a purely legal basis and you'll last longer. Secondly, those same cars ARE policed (by police no less) all the time.
With taxpayers money. You think Ford should pay to stop incoming drug trucks (and outgoing firearm trucks) if their models are being used?
How would it be done? I'll take a stab. Forced registration of users possibly by fee. All seeded material must be reviewed and checked off as legal. Any illegal material should be deleted. Kinda like how... I dunno, almost everyone else does it.
That's just artificially cutting down the number of users and total torrents to make it easier to police. At the current volume of traffic? There's just too many torrents to approve. You're saying that as long as the site functions are crippled beforehand it'll be easy. You're asking Ford to approve every trip you take with that truck of theirs that you bought before you can take it. Lovely.
-
but as I said, how is it different from streaming it from his server, it's a slightly different issue than torrenting, but it is still considered by most to be a form of piracy.
how is watching a DVD at someone else's house (or them bringing it to your house) different from watching it from there server, in both cases you never have possession of a copy of the file, you simply get to view it.
-
Further more, TPB was a ****ing SEARCH ENGINE. And it's being held accountable for what it finds, instead of say, the people who put up the stuff that it does its job in finding? Does Google partake in illegal behavoir if it links to sites advocating the secession of Texas from the US, by violent means if possible? No. Because search engines are protected by Freedom of Speech laws. You can't jail someone because they did nothing more than give you directions to a child porn store. All they did was give directions.
-
ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?
Does the user rights given when purchased give the owner rights to show his movie for others for free? There you go. You don't get to take it home with you when he's done.
If the user rights say you and only you can watch this, then showing it to other people probably is wrong. But you or I don't get to decide the rules, the owner of the work does.
You mean the publisher of the work, cause in the case of the movie and music industries, they're the ones that own the copyrights. Most authors are smart enough to realize that consumers passing their stuff around is free advertising. That's how the hit machine works. No wonder sales are down now.
-
i am in a coffee shop using skype or whatever video chatting with my girlfriend, and someone behind me is watching a movie being played on any public (read analog through antenna style) television channel on the shop's tvs, and my girlfriend can see and understand it. is this piracy? what about if i tilt the camera so she can see better or turn the volume or mic gain up?
-
Cause the RIAA and MPAA is a grand alliance of all the big companies to set monolithic standards and practices, so IT'S THE ONLY ****ING GAME IN TOWN. Because if you want any money at all you'll have to commit perjury and say they the company employed you when it didn't. Legally, sure, it's the companies right to do whatever the **** they want. But is what they've done remotely moral or ethical? Just please, stop pretending that artist-publisher agreements are remotely fair to the artists.
I don't give a rat's ass if it's "fair" for the artist. They signed the damn contract.
You're telling me there is no way I could exist, as an artist, without a music company? None? Zero?
I can't do local concerts? Produce my own CDs? I can't create a website that sells my music in a format or form I see fit?
Oh wait I can? AMAZING.
With taxpayers money. You think Ford should pay to stop incoming drug trucks (and outgoing firearm trucks) if their models are being used?
Ford in this example is the artist? It's the owner of the work to determine how to distribute the work. I'm not really sure the point you're driving at (PUN!)
But to the overall example. A road would be a government project, owned by the government, regulated by law. Wouldn't TPB be a private project, owned by the TPB, regulated by law? I'm trying to find the difference.
That's just artificially cutting down the number of users and total torrents to make it easier to police.
How is that artificial? It's not a random selection of people, a forced queue, or limited bandwidth. It's security screening that most private trading companies in fact...... do. It keeps anonymous illegal traffickers out.
What it would do is cut down on illegal trafficking of items by forcing people to put their names (so to speak) on their illegal uploads and downloads. That is not artificial, that's designed intent.
At the current volume of traffic? There's just too many torrents to approve. You're saying that as long as the site functions are crippled beforehand it'll be easy.
Well no, I expect once a system is in place the amount of traffic will decrease.... dramatically. That was kind of the damn point, to eliminate the massive illegal file sharing.
"You can't do that! You'll cripple all the illegal transfers going on!"
"... I know."
You're asking Ford to approve every trip you take with that truck of theirs that you bought before you can take it. Lovely.
No actually Ford (I assume who would be a music company or movie company since it is their product you are using) lay out pretty specific guidelines for how to use their product.
They all have little lists in tiny type that state what you can and can't do with the thing you have bought.
And quite frankly yes, these companies ARE trying to track down all the use of their works to make sure they're used legally. And yes, I can see how they would be mad at places that gave almost unrestricted access to their works for free.
-
but as I said, how is it different from streaming it from his server, it's a slightly different issue than torrenting, but it is still considered by most to be a form of piracy.
Are you asking my why YouTube deletes clips of copyrighted material off their site? That sounds really close to what you're asking.
how is watching a DVD at someone else's house (or them bringing it to your house) different from watching it from there server, in both cases you never have possession of a copy of the file, you simply get to view it.
Further research required! But as a quick stab, I see places do this all the time. Hulu does it and quite frankly TV stations do it. I'm pretty sure they don't just buy the DVDs for 19.99 at WalMart.
-
ok, so if I go over to a friends house and watch a DVD that he bought how is this ethically different from streaming it off of his server?
If its really streaming, and its only you watching it, it probably isn't different in the eyes of the law. Its up to your friend to make sure you don't copy it, so his streaming tech should be implemented in a way that is reasonably configured to prevent copying.
That's why you can stream iTunes media to up to 5 computers at a time. Thaa's why DVD's have that notice at the beginning saying something to the effect of "you're allowed private exhibitions."
As always, I am not a lawyer, YMMV
-
I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.
Pirate Bay (from what I know about it) needs people to put links to copyrighted material there, but Google, and by default every other search engine, actively searches content which includes copyrighted material.
-
Doesn't Google remove copyrighted material on YouTube?
-
I think so, but does it remove it from Google (the search engine) itself? Also, Youtube stores content, the Pirate Bay just links it.
-
I laugh at the idiots that got caught, fined and jailed. Muhahahahaha :D
Art thou an MPAA or prehaps and RIAA lobbyist?
Nah, I just enjoy when people like this get caught, and fined or jailed, and all the computer weenies cry for them. :p
-
I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.
The difference is "Intent."
-
YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.
In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.
-
I'm actually wanting to hear Blue Lion's opinion on Google's and every other search engine's fault on linking copyrighted material.
The difference is "Intent."
No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents. The only difference is that one uses a passive link gathering system (users) while the other actively searches content (eg. google spider).
The only intent is to link material. Let's take a look at their usage policy (http://thepiratebay.org/policy) for instance:
The responsibility lies upon the user to not spread malicious, false or illegal material using the tracker.
This is remarkably similar to Google's (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS):
8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated.
-
YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.
In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.
^ What he said.
In other news, Swedish citizens protest the court ruling (http://torrentfreak.com/swedes-demonstrate-against-pirate-bay-verdict-090418/), and the Swedish Pirate Party membership surges in number from 15 000 to over 20 000 in the days since the trial.
Go Sweden.
-
No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents.
I'd buy that argument, maybe, if it was called "Torrent Bay."
And if the operators weren't unabashed pirates, telling lawyers who issued cease and desist letters to **** off, proud of both their illegal intent and their defiance of normal procedure. I'll give them that, it took some stones.
That's intent, though. Willful, blatant.
And that's the difference between them and Google.
I wish them luck in their appeal.
-
I think so, but does it remove it from Google (the search engine) itself? Also, Youtube stores content, the Pirate Bay just links it.
That's why they weren't charged with (or at least convicted of) possession of copyrighted material.
-
YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.
In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.
Which doesn't mean it was right, just popular. I might add that they do now attempt to remove the content.
-
YouTube didn't start removing copyrighted material until they were sued. And they fought against doing so for a long time, citing the impossibility of finding and removing all that material.
In fact YouTube probably never would have risen above all the other startups in the same field if it wasn't for the fact that they were the best source for copyrighted materials.
^ What he said.
In other news, Swedish citizens protest the court ruling (http://torrentfreak.com/swedes-demonstrate-against-pirate-bay-verdict-090418/), and the Swedish Pirate Party membership surges in number from 15 000 to over 20 000 in the days since the trial.
Go Sweden.
We've already established people like getting stuff for free.
I don't think anyone is shocked that people are totally FOR the ability to acquire (for free) almost any song, movie, tv show or program they can think of with almost no consequences.
-
Dude. Triple post = unnecessary.
-
well, you might be getting a political party in power who's only position is 'getting stuff for free is totaly awesome'
-
That's intent, though. Willful, blatant.
Then again North Korea calls themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but they sure as hell aren't democratic.
You really believe that? Kinda rails against the starving artist argument... And the "starving artist" argument is a huge red herring, that's not why people don't pay for music and you know it and it has damn little to do with why people pirate games.
That was just an example, but perhaps not the best. In reality there's three kinds of people, those who just buy it, those who pirate then if they like it enough, and those who would never buy it anyway for whatever reason. The reasoning behind pirating music is often the same. It is true that the "starving artist" is not why people pirate, but it does demonstrate that the record companies need radical reforms. There's only a select few super stars who profit from the current system, the rest don't have a chance.
Even with all of the "piracy is costing us billions" BS the publishing companies put out, my question is that even with all this torrenting and downloading why the hell were they making such huge profits?
acquire it legally,
Has the thought occured to you that at this point in time I can't without spending unacceptably large amounts of money? $60 a pop for a game is far too much for me at this point. If I had to choose between tuition and games, I'm choosing tuition.
Besides, the industry has even admitted that piracy isn't hurting their sales by nearly as much as they (and you) claim (http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says-090118/)
EDIT: I'll throw some more in here. Do you believe that the introduction of the VCR in the home would destroy video cassette rentals and sales? After all, they can just copy the tapes (almost) for free.......
and here's a good article explaining what piracy has done for the music industry (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9744037-16.html)
-
Has the thought occured to you that at this point in time I can't without spending unacceptably large amounts of money? $60 a pop for a game is far too much for me at this point. If I had to choose between tuition and games, I'm choosing tuition.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?
Does this mean I'll never see you rail in any of the threads about people getting houses they couldn't pay? Cause that's totally ok, right?
Besides, the industry has even admitted that piracy isn't hurting their sales by nearly as much as they (and you) claim (http://torrentfreak.com/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says-090118/)
What is the correct level of sales loss to theft before the owner is allowed to do something about it?
Go shoplift something from a store and then tell them they should let you go because you didn't ruin the stores profit margin.
People would always steal stuff from us and be shocked we would actually call the cops. :lol:
-
Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?
Yet I want to play it anyway, since there's no way I could buy it anyway (meaning it isn't possible for them to make profits off of it anyway), why not pirate so I can add some joy to my otherwise dull existence?
-
Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?
Yet I want to play it anyway, since there's no way I could buy it anyway (meaning it isn't possible for them to make profits off of it anyway), why not pirate so I can add some joy to my otherwise dull existence?
Because it's illegal? :wtf:
Are you asking why I think people shouldn't commit crimes just to make themselves feel better?
'I want to "insert crime here" because my life is dull and it gives me joy'
Have fun thinking up cool things to put in there. I can think of a few awesome ones.
-
does this verdict matter in the fight against piracy?
nope.
Just as the verdicts against Napster of Kazaa didn't matter.
New methods will arise.
and in the meantime the pirate bay is still up and the appeals quite some time away.
-
Because it's illegal?
Are you asking why I think people shouldn't commit crimes just to make themselves feel better?
'I want to "insert crime here" because my life is dull and it gives me joy'
Have fun thinking up cool things to put in there. I can think of a few awesome ones.
No, and copywrite infringement is not illegal. If you notice the big downloaders that go to court are going to CIVIL court, not criminal. It's only the service providers that are getting arrested.
-
No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents.
I'd buy that argument, maybe, if it was called "Torrent Bay."
And if the operators weren't unabashed pirates, telling lawyers who issued cease and desist letters to **** off, proud of both their illegal intent and their defiance of normal procedure. I'll give them that, it took some stones.
Well, it obviously wasn't as clear-cut because the trial dragged on and charges were dropped.
It's almost as if the copyright laws were different around the world!
-
Has the thought ever occurred to you that if you can't afford a product or service.... you don't get it?
Yet I want to play it anyway, since there's no way I could buy it anyway (meaning it isn't possible for them to make profits off of it anyway), why not pirate so I can add some joy to my otherwise dull existence?
Because it's illegal? :wtf:
Are you asking why I think people shouldn't commit crimes just to make themselves feel better?
'I want to "insert crime here" because my life is dull and it gives me joy'
Have fun thinking up cool things to put in there. I can think of a few awesome ones.
I dunno.
Let's say you see this game. You pirate it. Does this harm the developer/producer?
If you wouldn't buy the game if it were impossible to pirate stuff, it's not actually hurting anyone. It's when you would buy it if pirating were impossible that hurts the game companies.
-
I dunno.
Let's say you see this game. You pirate it. Does this harm the developer/producer?
If you wouldn't buy the game if it were impossible to pirate stuff, it's not actually hurting anyone. It's when you would buy it if pirating were impossible that hurts the game companies.
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily. I would say if it wasn't so easy.... yes, people would have to buy it.
But it's entirely beside the point. You don't get to determine what is ok to steal. The owner of the work does.
-
No, and copywrite infringement is not illegal. If you notice the big downloaders that go to court are going to CIVIL court, not criminal. It's only the service providers that are getting arrested.
Oh it's only a civil matter? Oh well nevermind then!
Why are these companies taking people to court over civil matters?
Wait, civil means legal... right?
It doesn't? Those people can be sued for money? You don't say. :rolleyes:
-
No, it isn't. The Pirate Bay is a torrent tracker, the almost equivalent to a search engine for torrents.
I'd buy that argument, maybe, if it was called "Torrent Bay."
Well, I can explain the story behind the name.
There's a BSA like organization in sweden called the anti pirate bureau. They inspired the creation of a think tank called, for lulz, the pirate bureau, with the purpose of discussing copyright and related matters and how it should/could be in the future. They made a small experiment on using the new bittorrent technology (i.e. setting up a tracker), that got the name the pirate bay. It later spun off completely and went on to become the site we know today.
well, you might be getting a political party in power who's only position is 'getting stuff for free is totaly awesome'
Not quite. The position is that copyright laws need to be adjusted to work in the 21st century, and that people need to have their personal integrity intact.
-
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
Encourage these guys to stop letting Disney slap a new length of time on Mickey Mouse even though he should have been out a long time ago.
But here is an even better thought.
Write an email to a company. Doesn't really matter which. Music, movie, software.. whatever. Have it say
"Dear so and so,
I really like your products. I think they are great. However, I will never buy your products. I say this because you are ruining the industry and/or they cost too much. I still want your product though. Since I will never buy it, me having it will never hurt your profits. Please send me all your works so I can enjoy them.
Thank you"
Then wait and see how fast they send you all their work.
If they won't give them to you, why is it ok to take them?
-
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily. I would say if it wasn't so easy.... yes, people would have to buy it.
But it's entirely beside the point. You don't get to determine what is ok to steal. The owner of the work does.
I wasn't trying to make a point as to whether it was right or wrong, I was point out that no one is hurt from it, even if it is wrong.
Look at it this way:
[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]
-
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily. I would say if it wasn't so easy.... yes, people would have to buy it.
But it's entirely beside the point. You don't get to determine what is ok to steal. The owner of the work does.
I wasn't trying to make a point as to whether it was right or wrong, I was point out that no one is hurt from it, even if it is wrong.
Look at it this way:
And if I rob some billionaire and give all his money away to every person in the country, more people benefit. It's still illegal.
(Gonna wait to see if someone gets it)
You can't just do something and say it helps more people, therefore it must be ok to do.
-
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
Encourage these guys to stop letting Disney slap a new length of time on Mickey Mouse even though he should have been out a long time ago.
But here is an even better thought.
Write an email to a company. Doesn't really matter which. Music, movie, software.. whatever. Have it say
"Dear so and so,
I really like your products. I think they are great. However, I will never buy your products. I say this because you are ruining the industry and/or they cost too much. I still want your product though. Since I will never buy it, me having it will never hurt your profits. Please send me all your works so I can enjoy them.
Thank you"
Then wait and see how fast they send you all their work.
If they won't give them to you, why is it ok to take them?
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
-
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
I'm not really sure where I mentioned the US at all in that? :wtf:
-
And if I rob some billionaire and give all his money away to every person in the country, more people benefit. It's still illegal.
(Gonna wait to see if someone gets it)
You can't just do something and say it helps more people, therefore it must be ok to do.
If something that helps a lot of people and doesn't hurt anyone isn't a good thing, then I don't know what is a good thing...
-
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
I'm not really sure where I mentioned the US at all in that? :wtf:
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
the writing's on the wall on this one, boy
-
And if I rob some billionaire and give all his money away to every person in the country, more people benefit. It's still illegal.
(Gonna wait to see if someone gets it)
You can't just do something and say it helps more people, therefore it must be ok to do.
If something that helps a lot of people and doesn't hurt anyone isn't a good thing, then I don't know what is a good thing...
I don't know why that defense didn't work for them then. Oh wait, maybe because it isn't a defense.
You guys are very generous with other people's stuff in the efforts to help out.... yourselves.
-
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
I'm not really sure where I mentioned the US at all in that? :wtf:
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
the writing's on the wall on this one, boy
I ask you where I mentioned it and you just copy paste my post?
That still doesn't say where I mentioned the US.
-
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
I'm not really sure where I mentioned the US at all in that? :wtf:
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
the writing's on the wall on this one, boy
I ask you where I mentioned it and you just copy paste my post?
That still doesn't say where I mentioned the US.
Congress
State legislature
Can't you seriously note your biases
-
hmmm hmmm have you heard of this one particular party in sweden
the one that is less popular than the feminist party but exists nonetheless
HMMMM could it be that in this particular case the intricacies of US politics have absolutely no influence at all
I'm not really sure where I mentioned the US at all in that? :wtf:
If you want to change copyright law.. talk to your congress. State, local, or national legislatures.
the writing's on the wall on this one, boy
I ask you where I mentioned it and you just copy paste my post?
That still doesn't say where I mentioned the US.
Congress
State legislature
Can't you seriously note your biases
I said OR. As in "whichever". That's why I didn't say "and"
It's also pluralized. National LegislatureS.
I also left out dictators. But seriously, nitpick semantics. That makes the cause so much more.
-
And if I rob some billionaire and give all his money away to every person in the country, more people benefit. It's still illegal.
(Gonna wait to see if someone gets it)
You can't just do something and say it helps more people, therefore it must be ok to do.
If something that helps a lot of people and doesn't hurt anyone isn't a good thing, then I don't know what is a good thing...
I don't know why that defense didn't work for them then. Oh wait, maybe because it isn't a defense.
You guys are very generous with other people's stuff in the efforts to help out.... yourselves.
But it's not a defense for the type of thing that TPB does. It's not even a defense for normal cases because the only way to tell whether or not you would've ever bought the game is your own word.
It seems like you're acting that the verdicts of the current justice system are 100% hands down morally correct for these issues. They're not.
-
But it's not a defense for the type of thing that TPB does. It's not even a defense for normal cases because the only way to tell whether or not you would've ever bought the game is your own word.
It seems like you're acting that the verdicts of the current justice system are 100% hands down morally correct for these issues. They're not.
Maybe you should be in the other thread with Liberator arguing that the morality for you is the morality for me? :wtf:
But on to the points of this post.
1. It matters not if they are moral. They are legal. You may think it is a travesty against morality, and that's totally your right. But quite frankly the only 2 "people" I'm going to listen to on the subject are the people who make the laws and the guy who owns the stuff.
2. I don't think it is moral. It's their work. You may think they do a piss poor job of handling it, but it's still theirs. It's not yours. To me the greater morality issue is you disregarding an owner of a work.
3. You're not going to sway anyone in power with "but it'll make us all happy if these people are forced to give us their works for free". It only hurts the overall cause here.
The more and more people steal and the harder and harder they fight back against it, the more likely it is the solution that comes from it will not be one that is best.
All of the things you guys worry about in regards to internet regulation could come to fruition. It'll be because of the actions of these people who pushed too hard in the wrong place.
-
Well, actually, BL, it's what the piratbyrån and pirate party _is_ doing. How about you try and not put words in my posts I did not write for a change? This is the line I've been ****ing arguing all along, and you're still too thick to grasp it. The pirate party now has more members than 4 of the 7 parties in parliament. It is the only political party that is actually gaining members as opposed to losing them.
-
Well, actually, BL, it's what the piratbyrån and pirate party _is_ doing. How about you try and not put words in my posts I did not write for a change? This is the line I've been ****ing arguing all along, and you're still too thick to grasp it. The pirate party now has more members than 4 of the 7 parties in parliament. It is the only political party that is actually gaining members as opposed to losing them.
Yea. IS doing. Not HAVE done.
People are arguing that prostitution be legal here. Guys don't go out and visit hookers and say "You can't do anything to me, I'm part of a party to rid this moral outrage!"
You'll get your ass thrown in jail, and rightfully so.
Am I to understand that this party has not rewritten the law regarding copyright yet?
-
As for the discussion about whether it's optional or not to join the organisation representing artists, it really isn't. At least not here, as the organisation doing it does it by law backing it. You can't start up a competing organization - it'd be unlawful. If you do not join it, you can not get royalties for your records airing on the radio, you can not collaborate with members of the organization and you can not have your own CDs made without signing over your right to distribute to the organization. How would you suggest competing with that?
-
Yea. IS doing. Not HAVE done.
Have done for 6 years now, then.
-
Am I to understand that this party has not rewritten the law regarding copyright yet?
Did you know that red tape takes more time to change than for you to wank? Lobbying is a long-term commitment. Where are you ****ing going with this you wanker?
-
As for the discussion about whether it's optional or not to join the organisation representing artists, it really isn't. At least not here, as the organisation doing it does it by law backing it. You can't start up a competing organization - it'd be unlawful. If you do not join it, you can not get royalties for your records airing on the radio, you can not collaborate with members of the organization and you can not have your own CDs made without signing over your right to distribute to the organization. How would you suggest competing with that?
The same way the party you mentioned is dealing with copyright laws?
Why is "change the laws to better reflect our wants" such a bad solution?
Because it's too hard? It's easier to just steal stuff and rage against "the man"?
-
Am I to understand that this party has not rewritten the law regarding copyright yet?
Did you know that red tape takes more time to change than for you to wank? Lobbying is a long-term commitment. Where are you ****ing going with this you wanker?
That by working to change the law, it kinda implies that it is currently illegal. Do you do other acts on the basis that at some point they will be legal? Do you expect to be punished for those?
-
The party is working to change the laws by getting into parliament, yes. If that's such a bad thing, why do you ****ing suggest they do that, and then when I say that they are doing that, you make it a bad thing?
How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?
-
They're not out to legalise copyright infringements. They are out to make the laws more balanced. Like making copyright last a shorter time after a persons death. The prime example used is Steamboat Willy, I guess. In itself a parody of an earlier movie whose copyright wasn't expired when the clip was made even, but famous for being the first appearance of mickey mouse. should copyright expire on it, disney is out one cash cow, thus they want to make the expiry time longer and longer and longer ad infinitum. 10 years after makers death would be a bit more sensible. The kids of the creator could still make a bit of cash on it until they get on their two ****ing legs and get a honest ****ing job.
-
How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?
Watch it!
If you can't argue without resorting to name calling you won't be doing either here much longer!
-
They're not out to legalise copyright infringements. They are out to make the laws more balanced. Like making copyright last a shorter time after a persons death. The prime example used is Steamboat Willy, I guess. In itself a parody of an earlier movie whose copyright wasn't expired when the clip was made even, but famous for being the first appearance of mickey mouse. should copyright expire on it, disney is out one cash cow, thus they want to make the expiry time longer and longer and longer ad infinitum. 10 years after makers death would be a bit more sensible. The kids of the creator could still make a bit of cash on it until they get on their two ****ing legs and get a honest ****ing job.
I never mentioned removing copyright infringement. As a matter of fact I mentioned redoing the copyrights in a better way (and used mickey mouse as an example).
You're saying "we're working on it"
Which is like saying "it's not done yet"
Which is like "It's still currently against the law"
Which is kinda like "Anyone who does it is kinda guilty"
Why are people arguing for guys they admit are violating the rules because you haven't changed them yet?
-
Why are people arguing for guys they admit are violating the rules because you haven't changed them yet?
Well, while it doesn't make it lawful, civil disobedience has always been a valid method of protest.
Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?
-
What? I've never admitted that the pirate bay guys have done anything other than providing a platform where people can share information, and that it is more up to the actual copyright infringers to get prosecuted. I mostly argued, at least initially, that at least one of the accused is so remotely removed from the others that he shouldn't even have been a figure in the case (except he's also a multimillionaire so guess where the accusers see a source of money - the others are more or less on welfare or at least have normal jobs). This, however, went over your head, it seems.
How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?
Watch it!
If you can't argue without resorting to name calling you won't be doing either here much longer!
Yes, yes, getting banned from a forum led by a bunch of capricious administrators that take donations from their members and instead of it going to hosting pays overprices for quite ugly plastic models would really break my heart. How about you explain how I recently had a few posts removed by your "brain" trust, and you don't even contact me about it, instead of making idle threats which I don't really care about?
-
Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?
I'd argue she should've been flogged in public.
-
Well, while it doesn't make it lawful, civil disobedience has always been a valid method of protest.
Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?
I seem to recall Rosa Parks did, in fact, get a punishment.
-
Yes she did. But my point was that despite the illegal nature of her act people protested the verdict.
Yes, yes, getting banned from a forum led by a bunch of capricious administrators that take donations from their members and instead of it going to hosting pays overprices for quite ugly plastic models would really break my heart. How about you explain how I recently had a few posts removed by your "brain" trust, and you don't even contact me about it, instead of making idle threats which I don't really care about?
I've not deleted any of your posts and if someone else has you are free to use the various methods available to you to complain about it.
And if you don't care about it enough to complain, why bring it up now?
-
What? I've never admitted that the pirate bay guys have done anything other than providing a platform where people can share information, and that it is more up to the actual copyright infringers to get prosecuted. I mostly argued, at least initially, that at least one of the accused is so remotely removed from the others that he shouldn't even have been a figure in the case (except he's also a multimillionaire so guess where the accusers see a source of money - the others are more or less on welfare or at least have normal jobs). This, however, went over your head, it seems.
Actually no, you haven't spent the last good number of posts talking about that poor poor millionaire.
Quite a few posts you've spent back and forth with me were about
Copyright laws. Political parties. Artist representation. Cinema monopoly. How DRM is bad. Olgiopols.
Quite frankly the last time you mentioned the guy you're so concerned about was on page 2.
Are you then implying that the other guys ARE really guilty?
-
Yes she did. But my point was that despite the illegal nature of her act people protested the verdict.
I'm not saying don't complain. They can complain all they want about how copyright laws and internet usage laws and wrong and need to be changed. Bravo for them.
What I do have issue with is how they currently steal stuff hand over fist.
They aren't spending time telling me it needs to change (I know it needs to change). People are trying to tell me these people haven't done anything wrong.
-
Because I'd rather not have to ask. I'd rather you actually told me why Booger removed my post without me having to inquire about it.
Also, do try to use your limitied cognition to recognize a difference between a threat which is worthless because the consequences of them bear no worth to me and for example a threat not even worth considering because the one making them is in no position to enforce them.
-
Actually no, you haven't spent the last good number of posts talking about that poor poor millionaire.
Quite a few posts you've spent back and forth with me were about
Copyright laws. Political parties. Artist representation. Cinema monopoly. How DRM is bad. Olgiopols.
Quite frankly the last time you mentioned the guy you're so concerned about was on page 2.
Are you then implying that the other guys ARE really guilty?
Are you so illiterate that I need to explain to you what the word "initially" means?
And no, I'm not implying that they are guilty. I am however saying that the others are a lot more involved with the pirate bay than carl ever was or wanted to be.
-
Because I'd rather not have to ask. I'd rather you actually told me why Booger removed my post without me having to inquire about it.
I don't know. Which is why you have to ask. It's really not that hard to understand that HLP's admins are not a gestalt entity who are instantly aware of everything the other members have done.
Also, do try to use your limitied cognition to recognize a difference between a threat which is worthless because the consequences of them bear no worth to me and for example a threat not even worth considering because the one making them is in no position to enforce them.
You were warned.
-
Are you so illiterate that I need to explain to you what the word "initially" means?
And no, I'm not implying that they are guilty. I am however saying that the others are a lot more involved with the pirate bay than carl ever was or wanted to be.
Oh I get what you said. I just have to laugh that you've thrown all these arguments at me and you've resorted to "Well that's not what I was talking about first!"
But they're all innocent right? So who cares who is MORE innocent than the others?
-
Blue's doing a nice job arguing what I would have argued :)
I wanted to add something on the whole benifit thing. I don't like to download things, and go out of my way to buy them. I found out recently I wouldn't have the money to sustain them. I got my first job and had to adjust and grow just a bit more to handle that. Without any long term needs to worry about I'll take those paychecks and throw them back into things I want.
So:
1) I've grown closer to becoming responsible and will be able to use the progress from that to help me succeed in future endeavors
2) People benefit from the work I do (especially when you consider this is a tutoring center on campus)
3) All the extra money I throw to pay for what I want goes and helps individual businesses and the economy in general.
The most people benefit if everyone does that. This is what people have done for years when faced with not enough money to buy things, either they find a way to get more money, or they just start stealing stuff. And since people don't like having their stuff stolen society generally supports coming down on thieves. There are much worse things to worry about then having to give up some time to get a job, you're not going to get too much pity out of me if you try and respond saying how it's too hard, you can't, etc.
-
I was all alone on this side dammit! :hopping:
-
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily.
That's bad logic. If someone doesn't have enough money to get something legally, they won't get it legally. Full stop, no matter if it is easy to pirate or not.
-
Unless of course you're a fully un-handicapped individual that could go out and get a job to pay for things. Which sometimes can't happen, bur realistically, most of the people pirating things probably aren't in dire economic straits and just don't feel like obtaining the money to go out and buy things. So what do you think would happen with those people if it wasn't easy to pirate things? Either they'd go without (which isn't a travesty it's made out to be, if your life is incomplete without having every piece of music on the radio, movie, etc, you've got problems), or they'd finally step up and work for the money so they could buy stuff.
-
Information, in my opinion, has its value not in its restriction but in its sharing; that is, it can be made the most of when it is made open and free to all. Control and purposeful limitation only cause us to seek it out in a different way.
The current corporate witch-hunt against file sharing is simply the latest in a human legacy against information reform. There are pictures of old books chained to walls in medieval eras, guarded by sentinels to make sure the unauthorized do not read them. The invention of the printing press caused its inventor to be labeled a devil-worshiper because of the exact similarities between one Bible and another. The invention of recorded sound media caused musicians to question whether or not recorded music would take away the desire for live performances. Ditto for Hollywood's film industry and the video cassette.
And you know what? Surprisingly, the printers, musicians, and film producers are all still around. And thriving despite their crybaby acts.
We have here a technology that enables us to share information in all its forms with virtually everyone everywhere. We therefore have a responsibility to not horde our knowledge like a data mogul, but to distribute it freely.
And so, file-sharing is becoming a force for social change--as its predecessors have against informational restrictions in the past. This ruling against The Pirate Bay means absolutely nothing in the long run; institutions like the MPAA and the RIAA will die the slow, painful death of obsolescence.
-
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily.
That's bad logic. If someone doesn't have enough money to get something legally, they won't get it legally. Full stop, no matter if it is easy to pirate or not.
If it's not easy to steal and it's still desirable, some people may in fact it so much they would go out of their way to buy it.
You're implying all these people stealing have zero money... none.
-
Information, in my opinion, has its value not in its restriction but in its sharing; that is, it can be made the most of when it is made open and free to all. Control and purposeful limitation only cause us to seek it out in a different way.
I'm sure the people who own and distribute works as their livelihood are very pleased in your opinions on how you should have access to their stuff.
The current corporate witch-hunt against file sharing is simply the latest in a human legacy against information reform. There are pictures of old books chained to walls in medieval eras, guarded by sentinels to make sure the unauthorized do not read them. The invention of the printing press caused its inventor to be labeled a devil-worshiper because of the exact similarities between one Bible and another. The invention of recorded sound media caused musicians to question whether or not recorded music would take away the desire for live performances. Ditto for Hollywood's film industry and the video cassette.
Except in your odd analogy those people ARE witches. They are in fact in possession of illegal materials. They are not just demonizing people for a belief (I think it's cute you think that) they are actually breaking laws.
And you know what? Surprisingly, the printers, musicians, and film producers are all still around. And thriving despite their crybaby acts.
I love this argument. "Let us have access to all their works for free, they'll make money.... somehow." It completely skips over any argument about rights by basically saying "We can't possibly bankrupt them and we won't know unless we try"
We have here a technology that enables us to share information in all its forms with virtually everyone everywhere. We therefore have a responsibility to not horde our knowledge like a data mogul, but to distribute it freely.
Firstly, no we don't have that responsibility. I have information I would not like distributed freely thank you very much. Things like personal information and works. Secondly it completely ignores that these works cost money to make and under current law are able to be sold. You just want companies to spend tons of money making things for your enjoyment and then just give them away for your betterment. Somehow I don't think you feel that way about things like car companies and grocery stores and clothing stores.
And so, file-sharing is becoming a force for social change--as its predecessors have against informational restrictions in the past.
*stifles laughter*
This ruling against The Pirate Bay means absolutely nothing in the long run; institutions like the MPAA and the RIAA will die the slow, painful death of obsolescence.
Or it'll give them more power as people with vested monetary investments in these works will fight even harder to stop the theft. Don't think they won't kill net neutrality or other things to stop it.
-
Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit. Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.
Example of bad pirating:
Most of your games are pirated and never get paid for.
-
You're not going to buy it because it's free to steal easily.
That's bad logic. If someone doesn't have enough money to get something legally, they won't get it legally. Full stop, no matter if it is easy to pirate or not.
If it's not easy to steal and it's still desirable, some people may in fact it so much they would go out of their way to buy it.
You're implying all these people stealing have zero money... none.
Not zero, not enough to afford the given price. There is a difference. Of course not all of them are like that, but a great many are, especially in the 3rd thirdworld.
Your first sentence still ignores what I said, if people can't afford it they wont buy it.
-
Not zero, not enough to afford the given price. There is a difference. Of course not all of them are like that, but a great many are, especially in the 3rd thirdworld.
Your first sentence still ignores what I said, if people can't afford it they wont buy it.
Oh I get what you said, it's flat out wrong.
Do these people not have money? Are they broke?
Oh they do have money? Well why can't they buy it?
What? The bought things like houses, cars, clothes, food, and other things that also cost money?
You mean they CHOSE to buy those things at their price instead of saving up and buying songs for a dollar or movies for 10?
I bought my truck, I bought my clothes, food, cell phone, pay for tuition, etc etc etc. My current spare cash is pretty slim due to school. What I don't do is go running around stealing things cause I can't pay for it right now. I know why I can't pay for it, I bought other things.
Songs, movies and video games are not necessities. These are luxury goods that you could buy if you didn't spend money on other luxury goods. The only way you could not have money for luxury goods is if you were below the poverty line. Then why are you on the internet downloading stuff?
-
Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit. Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.
I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.
You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)
Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?
-
I'm sure the people who own and distribute works as their livelihood are very pleased in your opinions on how you should have access to their stuff.
Quite (http://torrentfreak.com/sweden-artists-filesharing-080401/) a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Coelho#File_Sharing) producers and publishers (http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-labels-see-filesharing-as-virtue-080227/) have indicated that that is exactly what they think.
Except in your odd analogy those people ARE witches. They are in fact in possession of illegal materials. They are not just demonizing people for a belief (I think it's cute you think that) they are actually breaking laws.
And I think it's absolutely adorable that you are taking the term "witch-hunt" and taking it in seriousness. This ain't the inquisitions we're talking about here; I've got a few definitions related to more than just burning innocents at the stake.
Firstly, no we don't have that responsibility. I have information I would not like distributed freely thank you very much. Things like personal information and works. Secondly it completely ignores that these works cost money to make and under current law are able to be sold. You just want companies to spend tons of money making things for your enjoyment and then just give them away for your betterment. Somehow I don't think you feel that way about things like car companies and grocery stores and clothing stores.
Where have I stated anywhere that I wanted your personal information, or the personal information of anyone else? I'm speaking of "information" in the sense of data which has cultural value. As to the point material costs money to produce and distribute, well, oddly piracy doesn't seem to have much of an effect on sales (http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39119638,00.htm), at least in the area of music, and some content producers, like Paulo Coelho (http://torrentfreak.com/alchemist-author-pirates-own-books-080124/), have come to use it as a tool for spreading their market around the globe. As to the accusation that I want companies to "spend tons of money making things for [my] enjoyment and then just give them away for [my] betterment", I do buy most of the things I download, for the simple reason that having a copy of the source material is always somehow just better because of some nebulous quality than what can be downloaded. As to cars, groceries, and clothes...how the chuffing hell am I supposed to download a car, fresh produce, and a Slipknot t-shirt?
*stifles laughter*
If your only response to that argument is laughter, then it's a sign that you don't have a counter-argument. We have been here before. For thousands of years, the scribal culture of mankind chose a select few transmit written information across time and space. When the printing press came along, the nations of Europe made it clear that they would be the ones controlling the flow of information; printing presses became outlawed in many jurisdictions of the day and many books deemed illegal to print. And all that for the simple reason that whoever controls the flow of information wields a great deal of power. In the eighteenth century, printed media became a force for change just as BitTorrent is now: printers outside of France would print books deemed illegal in that country and then smuggle their wares across the border. The French Revolution is largely attributed to a result from mass availability of "pirated" content: freedom of opinion and expression.
And then as the means of distribution changed, there was more and more naysaying from the industry. There was a lawsuit registered by a collection of major American movie studios whose representatives stated publicly that "the VCR is to the American movie industry what the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone." And then, the industry could not live without the VCR.
Or it'll give them more power as people with vested monetary investments in these works will fight even harder to stop the theft. Don't think they won't kill net neutrality or other things to stop it.
The assumption here is that all piracy is bad. The major industries need to change their worldview in order to survive; they have adapted to new distribution methods in the past. The fact they are not reeks of ignorance and a lack of knowledge.
-
Quite (http://torrentfreak.com/sweden-artists-filesharing-080401/) a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Coelho#File_Sharing) producers and publishers (http://torrentfreak.com/swedish-labels-see-filesharing-as-virtue-080227/) have indicated that that is exactly what they think.
Then let them give their stuff away?
Steve wants to give his stuff away, so let's take MGMs library.
And I think it's absolutely adorable that you are taking the term "witch-hunt" and taking it in seriousness. This ain't the inquisitions we're talking about here; I've got a few definitions related to more than just burning innocents at the stake.
Wait, you used the term witch hunt and DIDN'T mean a scenario where innocent people were caught up in mass hysteria and phony trials?
You meant witch hunt as in tons of people illegally downloading copyrighted material? How did I miss the connection? :rolleyes:
Where have I stated anywhere that I wanted your personal information, or the personal information of anyone else?
When you said it was ok to take any of my stuff that you like. You just said the information should be free to everyone.
I'm speaking of "information" in the sense of data which has cultural value.
Oh so only stuff you WANT should be free for you. Should you have access to my videos, songs, pictures and stories I make for free?
As to the point material costs money to produce and distribute, well, oddly piracy doesn't seem to have much of an effect on sales (http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39119638,00.htm), at least in the area of music, and some content producers, like Paulo Coelho (http://torrentfreak.com/alchemist-author-pirates-own-books-080124/), have come to use it as a tool for spreading their market around the globe.
You keep picking that one guy. It's his right to do what he wants with his work. I love how you keep linking to the same place over and over. Not that they might have a bias or anything.
As to the accusation that I want companies to "spend tons of money making things for [my] enjoyment and then just give them away for [my] betterment, I do buy most of the things I download, for the simple reason that having a copy of the source material is always somehow just better because of some nebulous quality than what can be downloaded.
If they're such poor quality, why are people downloading them? I'm gonna guess it doesn't matter to them.
As to cars, groceries, and clothes...how the chuffing hell am I supposed to download a car, fresh produce, and a Slipknot t-shirt?
So because it's a download, it's ok that it's theft?
If your only response to that argument is laughter, then it's a sign that you don't have a counter-argument. We have been here before. For thousands of years, the scribal culture of mankind chose a select few transmit written information across time and space. When the printing press came along, the nations of Europe made it clear that they would be the ones controlling the flow of information; printing presses became outlawed in many jurisdictions of the day and many books deemed illegal to print. And all that for the simple reason that whoever controls the flow of information wields a great deal of power. In the eighteenth century, printed media became a force for change just as BitTorrent is now: printers outside of France would print books deemed illegal in that country and then smuggle their wares across the border. The French Revolution is largely attributed to a result from mass availability of "pirated" content: freedom of opinion and expression.
And then as the means of distribution changed, there was more and more naysaying from the industry. There was a lawsuit registered by a collection of major American movie studios whose representatives stated publicly that "the VCR is to the American movie industry what the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone." And then, the industry could not live without the VCR.
*laughs even harder*
Oh man. I LOVE you guys that think you're on some kind of cultural social movement.
Your big issue with the little printing press example is the stuff you're taking isn't illegal or in any way unobtainable. It's purchasable. People just don't want to because the people are lazy and don't feel like working or paying for what they want. So they turn around and pretend this is some noble cause when it's really just greedy people who want every song, movie and game in existence because they feel they are somehow owed the right to enjoy a work by someone else without giving them anything back for it.
Stop taking greed and laziness and pretending it's some social movement.
The assumption here is that all piracy is bad. The major industries need to change their worldview in order to survive; they have adapted to new distribution methods in the past. The fact they are not reeks of ignorance and a lack of knowledge.
The worldview change is "I want your stuff for free" and these companies are just supposed to go "Ok, you got us, take all our stuff"
You want the entire series of BSG and Family Guy and all the Batman movies and all the songs by so and so and just don't want to pay for it. This culture is not locked away or hidden. It's on TV, the radio, movie theaters, everywhere. You can get anything you want, but you have to pay the people who spent time and money to make it.
You just don't want to do it so you can spend more money on other things. It's greed, plain and simple.
-
Until BL says something I disagree with, consider this my tacit approval of his position. Nothing I can say will add any additional value to the argument other than I agree.
I will say, that all the people I know personally, in real life, who download things do it purely out of greed or laziness, with 2 exceptions, only one of which maintains a social position on the "freedom of information" tack.
And I know a lot of people.
-
Until BL says something I disagree with, consider this my tacit approval of his position. Nothing I can say will add any additional value to the argument other than I agree.
I agree with Blue Lion as well.
-
Oh I get what you said, it's flat out wrong.
No it isn't. You just insist on applying poor reasoning in the face on evidence. Saying there's only one possible outcome in a situation like this is a logical fallacy.
Do these people not have money? Are they broke?
Oh they do have money? Well why can't they buy it?
They have money, but not much. I know because I'm one of them. I barely have enough for food, tuition, and clothing needs. I have a crappy second hand computer, if I need to reformat I can't afford to buy a new copy of windows that is worth more than my computer is.
-
They have money, but not much. I know because I'm one of them. I barely have enough for food, tuition, and clothing needs. I have a crappy second hand computer, if I need to reformat I can't afford to buy a new copy of windows that is worth more than my computer is.
A computer sounds like.... man, what are those things.... you know what I mean, the things that aren't required for basic living..... yea yea the things that won't kill you if you don't have them... oh yea LUXURIES.
We must live in a awesome new world where computers and internet are required for survival and not luxuries that improve our lives. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you may have other luxuries like a TV, cable or satellite, a cell phone, an MP3 player.
I know this may come as a shock but when I want something and don't have the money for it.... I work more or I save money by not buying other things. I'm a student, I don't have a lot of money lying around. I would love to have tons of songs, movies and TV shows. I can't afford them.
The idea that these things are physically beyond your means is a lie. You just chose to spend the money on other things.
-
A computer sounds like.... man, what are those things.... you know what I mean, the things that aren't required for basic living..... yea yea the things that won't kill you if you don't have them... oh yea LUXURIES.
What century do you live in?
-
A computer sounds like.... man, what are those things.... you know what I mean, the things that aren't required for basic living..... yea yea the things that won't kill you if you don't have them... oh yea LUXURIES.
What century do you live in?
The century where people don't die if they don't have internet and computers.
Do you really think when people walk into war torn regions their first thought is "Let's get these people food, water, shelter and season 3 of LOST right away!"
You seem to think "entertainment" is a right you should have for free.
-
The idea that these things are physically beyond your means is a lie. You just chose to spend the money on other things.
Sans verifiable records on what Kosh actually buys this argument is dubious at best, or a fallacy at worst.
Do you really think when people walk into war torn regions their first thought is "Let's get these people food, water, shelter and season 3 of LOST right away!"
You seem to think "entertainment" is a right you should have for free.
It is. And has been argued for a long time.
The chief aim of their constitution and government is that, whenever public needs permit, all citizens should be free, so far as possible, to withdraw their time and energy from the service of the body, and devote themselves to the freedom and culture of the mind. For that, they think, is the real happiness of life.
By downloading, and sharing, works of art, I am participating in it. Giving it a broader and wider audience, discussing it, using it, evolving from it. Art, in whatever form, should never have a price tag. Even if artists do have to eat and pay bills. Copyright laws were meant to protect artists, not the ones profiting from their (usually) underpaid work. Publishers, musicians, and filmmakers, and painters have been struggling to make ends meet long before file-sharing came along. Whether due to simple poor quality or a bad contract, it is unfair to use BitTorrent or file-sharing as a whole as a scapegoat for a lack of profitability.
From Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig (http://www.sslug.dk/~chlor/lessig/freeculture/piracy.html#piracy-ii):
Could the industry as a whole be gaining because of file sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD sales actually suggest it might be close.
In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.[12] This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could account for at least some of the loss. "From 1999 to 2001, the average price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19."[13] Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of the decline. As Jane Black of BusinessWeek notes, "The soundtrack to the film High Fidelity has a list price of $18.98. You could get the whole movie [on DVD] for $19.99."[14]
But let's assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is because of Internet sharing. Here's the rub: In the same period that the RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7 percent.
There are too many different things happening at the same time to explain these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable: The recording industry constantly asks, "What's the difference between downloading a song and stealing a CD?"--but their own numbers reveal the difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to sell. Every taking is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the RIAA provides, it is absolutely clear that the same is not true of downloads. If every download were a lost sale--if every use of Kazaa "rob[bed] the author of [his] profit"--then the industry would have suffered a 100 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6 times the number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between "downloading a song and stealing a CD."
-
Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?
Demos can often be quite misleading as to the quality of the final game.
In that regard, I have to admitt I am a bad pirate (when it comes to games).
As far as songs are concerned I have a total of 1.2 GB of music on my HDD, and half of it is music from games or free music. The rest are movie soundtracks or cherry picked songs. I don't have whole albums or CD from any performer. (Actually I doubt I have more than 3 songs from any perfomer...except from Howard Shore, Yoko Kanno and John Williams)
-
Sans verifiable records on what Kosh actually buys this argument is dubious at best, or a fallacy at worst.
He has a computer and he's on the internet. These are at least two luxuries and I speculated (most likely correct) that he has more. I seriously, seriously doubt Kosh has no luxury goods at all.
It is. And has been argued for a long time.
Wait, is it free or are you arguing that it should be free?
By downloading, and sharing, works of art, I am participating in it. Giving it a broader and wider audience, discussing it, using it, evolving from it. Art, in whatever form, should never have a price tag. Even if artists do have to eat and pay bills. Copyright laws were meant to protect artists, not the ones profiting from their (usually) underpaid work. Publishers, musicians, and filmmakers, and painters have been struggling to make ends meet long before file-sharing came along. Whether due to simple poor quality or a bad contract, it is unfair to use BitTorrent or file-sharing as a whole as a scapegoat for a lack of profitability.
The problem is, this is YOUR opinion. You're telling me that my work. My family pictures, my home videos, diaries and other personal works are YOURS. You have a right to them. They don't belong to the person who creates them. That's just flat out wrong.
You still haven't answered why my personal stuff should be yours.
You're telling me that art and works shouldn't be sold but then make claims about an artists profits? How would an artist earn a living if not by making money off their works?
Tons of gibberish
Which is it? Does piracy help turn a profit for these companies or should it be free and they shouldn't make a profit at all?
You're waffling back and forth between "it should be free" and "we're helping them make money". Which is the desired outcome here?
-
Demos can often be quite misleading as to the quality of the final game.
So you require a full copy of them to play through completely before you're willing to pay for it?
-
Not necessarily.
I've played demos that were good and then the released games wasn't even half as good - content was cut, bugs galore, controls scheme changed.
That's the problem when companies spend more time on a demo than on the actual finished product.
And willing to pay for it? If I really like it, I will pay. But I mean, real like it.
I did say I was a bad pirate, didn't I? I prolly have 3 original games, tops. But then gain I don't play much..I mostly mod games.
-
He has a computer and he's on the internet. These are at least two luxuries and I speculated (most likely correct) that he has more. I seriously, seriously doubt Kosh has no luxury goods at all.
Maybe, but Kosh must, like the rest of us, eat and pay his bills. Unless you can demonstrably prove that Kosh really does simply choose to spend money on other things, I would not make that supposition.
Wait, is it free or are you arguing that it should be free?
Whoop, my bad. I should have been more clear. Both.
The problem is, this is YOUR opinion. You're telling me that my work. My family pictures, my home videos, diaries and other personal works are YOURS. You have a right to them. They don't belong to the person who creates them. That's just flat out wrong.
You still haven't answered why my personal stuff should be yours.
You're telling me that art and works shouldn't be sold but then make claims about an artists profits? How would an artist earn a living if not by making money off their works?
As I've stated earlier, why would I want your personal home videos or diaries? Nobody is forcing you to put your private information on any file-sharing network. And I've never stated art and works shouldn't be sold; I said that it was a mistake to use file-sharing as a scapegoat for low sales resulting from bad contracts between artists and publishers or a simple lack of talent. If you bothered to read the "ton of gibberish" (and you should, really. It's an intelligently-written essay and the segment I referenced was a grand total of three paragraphs) you would see what I mean. File-sharing is not nearly as harmful as you make it out to be.
Which is it? Does piracy help turn a profit for these companies or should it be free and they shouldn't make a profit at all?
You're waffling back and forth between "it should be free" and "we're helping them make money". Which is the desired outcome here?
At the very least, file sharing does not account for nearly as big of a loss as you seem to be suggesting. Knowledge is free. As for whether or not BitTorrent users like myself are making them money, there are varying opinions. Some content-creators see file-sharing as a means of expanding their market into otherwise unviable areas. Several studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34300-2004Mar29?language=printer) say (http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/032904_file_sharing.html) that peer-to-peer activity does not hurt sales, while others (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars) say (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html) file-sharing (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3621/125/) is, in point of fact, beneficial. (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/11/03/government-study-proves-illegal-file-sharing-increases-music-sales/)
-
Maybe, but Kosh must, like the rest of us, eat and pay his bills. Unless you can demonstrably prove that Kosh really does simply choose to spend money on other things, I would not make that supposition.
As I said, he has a computer and he has the internet. That is at least 2 luxuries he's spent money on instead of this. I am almost positive he has more. We can ask him if he has a cell phone, TV, other electronics and other luxuries. Let's see what he says. I'd be quite interested to learn he lives in a housing project, has 2 sets of clothes, no car and eats Ramen noodles all day. Somehow I think it's slightly different than that.
Whoop, my bad. I should have been more clear. Both.
You're arguing that copyright law doesn't exist. That these people are criminally selling items that are free. :wtf:
As I've stated earlier, why would I want your personal home videos or diaries?
Because it's my work! you've just stated that artists works should be free for everyone. Why are my drawings and my videos and my songs and my stuff not included in your "works should be free for everyone" kick? Could it be because they aren't multi million dollar productions that you don't want?
You're quick to argue over taking these works from companies and making them be free until I mention my works, then suddenly it's private.
Nobody is forcing you to put your private information on any file-sharing network. And I've never stated art and works shouldn't be sold;
"Whoop, my bad. I should have been more clear. Both." <---- Right there you did.
"Art, in whatever form, should never have a price tag." <---- Right there too.
"Information, in my opinion, has its value not in its restriction but in its sharing; that is, it can be made the most of when it is made open and free to all." <---- Here as well.
"We therefore have a responsibility to not horde our knowledge like a data mogul, but to distribute it freely." <---- Again.
That's only the last 2 pages. I'm sure I can find more. You have specifically argued that works shouldn't be sold and should, in fact, be free.
I said that it was a mistake to use file-sharing as a scapegoat for low sales resulting from bad contracts between artists and publishers or a simple lack of talent. If you bothered to read the "ton of gibberish" (and you should, really. It's an intelligently-written essay and the segment I referenced was a grand total of three paragraphs) you would see what I mean. File-sharing is not nearly as harmful as you make it out to be.
Actually it is, precisely because of the ease at which information can be sent without consequence and the current mindset of people like you who are convinced they aren't doing anything wrong.
The reason it's gibberish is because you keep deviating from the main point. I don't care how much money they make. I don't care if these companies make billions due to piracy. My only point is it is only the right of the owner to decide how to distribute it and at what cost. It is not your decision to decide what is best for them since you neither earn a profit on it or made the work in any way.
At the very least, file sharing does not account for nearly as big of a loss as you seem to be suggesting.
I have never suggested any loss. How much money they make is irrelevant.
Knowledge is free.
Except my stuff right? Remember the stuff I didn't have to give up? Is that not free? Or is it free? I'm curious as to where my work falls into your defintion.
As for whether or not BitTorrent users like myself are making them money, there are varying opinions. Some content-creators see file-sharing as a means of expanding their market into otherwise unviable areas. Several studies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34300-2004Mar29?language=printer) say (http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/032904_file_sharing.html) that peer-to-peer activity does not hurt sales, while others (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars) say (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html) file-sharing (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3621/125/) is, in point of fact, beneficial. (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/11/03/government-study-proves-illegal-file-sharing-increases-music-sales/)
Why are you answering stuff I never asked?
But you refuse to answer the question. Should companies sell work at a profit? If you think work is free, no these companies should not be selling songs and movies and their profits will be zero. If you think they should be selling it at a profit, you're saying that the owners of the work have every right to set prices and do own it.
You're arguing they shouldn't be making any money yet you're helping them make money. Again, you're just filling in whatever argument you think fits that allows you to steal without worrying about it too much.
-
@Blue Lion
1. As I see it, there is difference between forcing someone to give away knowledge, or allowing him to do it.
No one plans to do the former - if you don't want to share, you don't have to. However, it is currently forbidden to share all knowledge or data I have.
2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs.
3. Laws are not there to ensure profit, were otherwise no profit could be made. They shouldn't be. In case of intellectual property, it's to allow artists to have a nice life. To encourage people to create art - note that in the area of science, similar creations or inventions expire much faster, in case of drugs only around ten years (didn't look that long for exact times, so it's an unverified "8-12 years", but I remember it being quite short anyway, so that might fit)
4. The Internet became a "necessity" recently, in my case I couldn't study without having internet access - everything is coordinated via the net.
It's an important source for information, and information/an informed citizen is crucial for a democracy, similar to newspapers and tv. So while it can also be used for luxury, it's not the only thing it is used for.
-
How would an artist earn a living if not by making money off their works?
Artists make money off of their fame, not their work.
-
How would an artist earn a living if not by making money off their works?
Artists make money off of their fame, not their work.
How does one go about selling fame?
-
@Blue Lion
1. As I see it, there is difference between forcing someone to give away knowledge, or allowing him to do it.
No one plans to do the former - if you don't want to share, you don't have to. However, it is currently forbidden to share all knowledge or data I have.
The point is you don't own the information we're talking about. Movies, songs, programs. You own the rights to use them and view them (and show them to others sometimes)
2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs.
Ask yourself the question "Why is that the case?"
3. Laws are not there to ensure profit, were otherwise no profit could be made. They shouldn't be. In case of intellectual property, it's to allow artists to have a nice life. To encourage people to create art - note that in the area of science, similar creations or inventions expire much faster, in case of drugs only around ten years (didn't look that long for exact times, so it's an unverified "8-12 years", but I remember it being quite short anyway, so that might fit)
It's not to allow artists to have a nice life. :wtf:
That implies the only way for an artist to have a nice life is via copyright? No. The point is to ensure that the artist has the say in what to do with with their work. If their work sucks, no one is going to buy it. That doesn't allow them a nice life but it lets them do what they want with their work.
4. The Internet became a "necessity" recently, in my case I couldn't study without having internet access - everything is coordinated via the net.
It's an important source for information, and information/an informed citizen is crucial for a democracy, similar to newspapers and tv. So while it can also be used for luxury, it's not the only thing it is used for.
That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone. I can turn off my computer and live a perfectly normal life, as anyone can.
-
How would an artist earn a living if not by making money off their works?
Artists make money off of their fame, not their work.
So if the works are free for everyone, how does the artist make money? Who is giving this person money and why?
-
The point is you don't own the information we're talking about. Movies, songs, programs. You own the rights to use them and view them (and show them to others sometimes)
It boils down to "I own it", this idea of owning knowledge others have is currently deeply ingrained in the society, I don't know why. You CREATED it - if you OWN it after giving it away (even giving it away for money) is the question of this part of the discussion.
Ask yourself the question "Why is that the case?"
Are you implying it's due to the internet? I have no information of this being any different ever.
Well, my answer would be due to commercials, social dynamic (it's "in", you go there with friends, you are curious because you have no knowledge if it sucks, etc etc)
At least that's the reason why I go to the cinema.
It's not to allow artists to have a nice life. :wtf:
That implies the only way for an artist to have a nice life is via copyright? No. The point is to ensure that the artist has the say in what to do with with their work. If their work sucks, no one is going to buy it. That doesn't allow them a nice life but it lets them do what they want with their work.
Certainly that's not the point, otherwise the copyright wouldn't be extended beyond the death of the artist ("have a nice life" -> give sth to children), or, if you argue the artist wants to decide what can be done with his work afterwards, it would never expire.
Just look at the patent right for similarities.
Maybe "have a nice life" sounded not like it was intended, I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good.
That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone. I can turn off my computer and live a perfectly normal life, as anyone can.
Information is a necessity for democracy, how are you going to vote, roll a die?
And you ignored the first part: Without internet, I couldn't finish my studies - how's that a perfectly normal life?
-
Studies: Library, you've not only got computers but these things called books there.
And then there's your classes, and textbooks.
-
Mostly marketing. Ads, endorsements, etc.
-
Mostly marketing. Ads, endorsements, etc.
If the general population shouldn't have to pay to use someone else's work, why should advertising companies? That seems like an anarchistic double standard.
-
Studies: Library, you've not only got computers but these things called books there.
And then there's your classes, and textbooks.
If I have to register for the tests via the internet, libraries won't help.
-
The reason it's gibberish is because you keep deviating from the main point. I don't care how much money they make. I don't care if these companies make billions due to piracy. My only point is it is only the right of the owner to decide how to distribute it and at what cost. It is not your decision to decide what is best for them since you neither earn a profit on it or made the work in any way.
Admittedly I have been ambiguous on a few points. Perhaps a brief overview of why I am pro-file sharing would be helpful.
There is no hard data to suggest that pirated media causes any significant loss in sales, and me (like a lot of other file-sharers out there) will quite often buy all of the things we download anyway. File-sharing opens me up to a broader spectrum of media that is more varied than what I see in advertisements elsewhere on the internet or TV.
As to what I would potentially do with your content, provided that I liked it, I would probably go out and buy it. As to the distributor's rights regarding pricing and dissemination, frankly your position puzzles me. The distributor can set whatever price he or she desires, but out of necessesity it will, more often than not, be altered to compete with the current market.
For you (and, indeed, many major corporations) to ignore and debase file-sharing as a means of distribution is confusing, for if you choose to ignore a means of distributing your content because you do not like it, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself. You would have nothing to lose in trying it, and it could possibly even lead to greater exposure to your content.
As a writer, it is a marketing tool that I endorse wholeheartedly.
-
A computer sounds like.... man, what are those things.... you know what I mean, the things that aren't required for basic living..... yea yea the things that won't kill you if you don't have them... oh yea LUXURIES.
What century do you live in?
The century where people don't die if they don't have internet and computers.
Do you really think when people walk into war torn regions their first thought is "Let's get these people food, water, shelter and season 3 of LOST right away!"
You seem to think "entertainment" is a right you should have for free.
I do have a computer, but like I said it was a crappy second hand one that I need to last for 3 more years until I graduate and work full time again. Plus it isn't a luxury because.....surprise I need it sometimes to do things for school. Internet is with the 1.5x3 meter dorm room. I do have a cell phone, but I bought it several years ago when I actually had a full time job and I still need it because I work part time and I don't have a landline. The rest is BS, I don't actually NEED to use any of that stuff so I don't have it.
Your entire arguement is based on sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies. Myself and others have presented evidence in contraditiction to what you said, you ignored it.
Until BL says something I disagree with, consider this my tacit approval of his position. Nothing I can say will add any additional value to the argument other than I agree.
Yep, reality be damned.
4. The Internet became a "necessity" recently, in my case I couldn't study without having internet access - everything is coordinated via the net.
It's an important source for information, and information/an informed citizen is crucial for a democracy, similar to newspapers and tv. So while it can also be used for luxury, it's not the only thing it is used for.
Let's not get such inconvenient facts get in the way, shall we?
-
Let's not get such inconvenient facts get in the way, shall we?
I call it the "Guantanamo Bay" approach to debate.
-
Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit. Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.
I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.
You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)
Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?
I torrented GTA4. It was reasonably good, didn't run that well, etc you know the rest. But in the end, I did buy it for the multiplayer. Not to mention Rockstar has actually made some patches...
The games I torrent and don't buy stay on my hard drive most of the time, but I don't play them more than a few hours. I probably should delete them, because they haven't been run in months... This huge hard drive can be useful at times.
-
You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)
Again you're confusing legal realities. It isn't stolen, it is copied without permission. Two totally different things.
-
It boils down to "I own it", this idea of owning knowledge others have is currently deeply ingrained in the society, I don't know why. You CREATED it - if you OWN it after giving it away (even giving it away for money) is the question of this part of the discussion.
But it's not given away. There is pretty clear (give or take) rules on what a user can do with a work they have published by someone else.
Are you implying it's due to the internet? I have no information of this being any different ever.
Well, my answer would be due to commercials, social dynamic (it's "in", you go there with friends, you are curious because you have no knowledge if it sucks, etc etc)
At least that's the reason why I go to the cinema.
No, it is because the people who really wanted it, got it. But people will pay for stuff that is over 2 years old (mostly at a reduced cost).
Certainly that's not the point, otherwise the copyright wouldn't be extended beyond the death of the artist ("have a nice life" -> give sth to children), or, if you argue the artist wants to decide what can be done with his work afterwards, it would never expire.
Just look at the patent right for similarities.
Maybe "have a nice life" sounded not like it was intended, I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good.
Good artists certainly do not always live well. There are artists who do good work and no one gives a damn and they are broke. Giving the work away for free isn't going to make them any richer.
Information is a necessity for democracy, how are you going to vote, roll a die?
And you ignored the first part: Without internet, I couldn't finish my studies - how's that a perfectly normal life?
Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.
1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.
2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.
I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?
-
Admittedly I have been ambiguous on a few points. Perhaps a brief overview of why I am pro-file sharing would be helpful.
There is no hard data to suggest that pirated media causes any significant loss in sales, and me (like a lot of other file-sharers out there) will quite often buy all of the things we download anyway. File-sharing opens me up to a broader spectrum of media that is more varied than what I see in advertisements elsewhere on the internet or TV.
You're still answering questions I'm not asking. I don't care if it's good, it's illegal. It's his work and if he wants to run it into the ground, he'll do it.
As to what I would potentially do with your content, provided that I liked it, I would probably go out and buy it.
You're not getting it, so I'll break it down. This is my personal work. Photos I've taken, family videos, stories I wrote for whatever reason. I'm not going to put them up for sale.
You're telling me that by creating these works, I am an artist. I should not be able to control the distribution of these works. They belong to everyone.
As to the distributor's rights regarding pricing and dissemination, frankly your position puzzles me. The distributor can set whatever price he or she desires, but out of necessesity it will, more often than not, be altered to compete with the current market.
For you (and, indeed, many major corporations) to ignore and debase file-sharing as a means of distribution is confusing, for if you choose to ignore a means of distributing your content because you do not like it, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself. You would have nothing to lose in trying it, and it could possibly even lead to greater exposure to your content.
And it's completely my right to do so.
"Hey that guy over there! He owns a work and isn't distributing it in the best way possible. Let's get him!"
If I write the greatest story ever told, don't I have the right to do with it what I please?
Suppose I want to lock it up and not let anyone read it.
Suppose I want to make it a bedtime story for my kids alone.
I want to write it on my wall for everyone to drive by and see.
I want to write a book and sell everyone on Earth a copy for .50.
You're telling me that once I write a work and it's good, it is no longer in my control.
Do these artists have a right to sell their work? If they do, people taking the work without the artists permission would be... wrong? Right?
-
I do have a computer, but like I said it was a crappy second hand one that I need to last for 3 more years until I graduate and work full time again.
Luxury. Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.
Plus it isn't a luxury because.....surprise I need it sometimes to do things for school. Internet is with the 1.5x3 meter dorm room.
It's still a luxury no matter how many classes you want to take.
I do have a cell phone, but I bought it several years ago when I actually had a full time job and I still need it because I work part time and I don't have a landline. The rest is BS, I don't actually NEED to use any of that stuff so I don't have it.
You don't need a cell phone either. I lived just fine without one. I bought one because it was a convenience, not a need.
Your entire arguement is based on sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies. Myself and others have presented evidence in contraditiction to what you said, you ignored it.
For someone who considers college to be a need for living, you're having a lot of fun calling my arguments fallacies. College education is not a need. There are people right now alive and well in this country who didn't go to college.
Before you come in and rail on me for your personal choice and how it REQUIRES and NEEDS a PC and such, save it. You could have gotten a job that doesn't require a college education but you didn't.
I'm glad you're doing it, a college education is a great tool. It's not a requirement to life though. I would dare say more people live in the world without a college education that with one.
Let's not get such inconvenient facts get in the way, shall we?
What fact? That you think it's needed? I don't think it's needed. Who's right? If only there were definitions to help us determine what were needed to live.....
You must be right though, if we removed the internet or computer you would surely die of lack of information. I see it all the time in Africa and Asia. If only we could get those people a Dell.
-
Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit. Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.
I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.
You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)
Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?
I torrented GTA4. It was reasonably good, didn't run that well, etc you know the rest. But in the end, I did buy it for the multiplayer. Not to mention Rockstar has actually made some patches...
The games I torrent and don't buy stay on my hard drive most of the time, but I don't play them more than a few hours. I probably should delete them, because they haven't been run in months... This huge hard drive can be useful at times.
Thank you for proving my point. You don't have to buy them and you don't delete them because you play them from time to time.
-
Mostly marketing. Ads, endorsements, etc.
Marketing for what?
Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?
If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?
-
Marketing for what?
Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?
If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?
Have you ever heard of this thing called "a concert"? People will actually go to a place with other people, where someone performs music on a "stage". Novel concept, that. It will never catch on, mark my words.
On a more serious note, what the Internet does regarding the music industry is something called "eliminating the middle man". Trent Reznor and Radiohead both seemed to have enjoyed moderate success with releasing their work basically for free (Radiohead gave customers the option to pay as much as they wanted for their album "In Rainbows", while Reznor released the latest NIN albums under a creative commons licence.)
-
Marketing for what?
Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?
If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?
Have you ever heard of this thing called "a concert"? People will actually go to a place with other people, where someone performs music on a "stage". Novel concept, that. It will never catch on, mark my words.
As a work of art, it should be free.
Isn't a concert just like any other form of distribution that shouldn't be shackled by money? Wouldn't you be denying the culture these people think belongs to them?
On a more serious note, what the Internet does regarding the music industry is something called "eliminating the middle man". Trent Reznor and Radiohead both seemed to have enjoyed moderate success with releasing their work basically for free (Radiohead gave customers the option to pay as much as they wanted for their album "In Rainbows", while Reznor released the latest NIN albums under a creative commons licence.)
I think the internet is a great tool to market and distribute works. I think it could lower cost in distribution and help get the work to the masses in ways previously known. I've never not said that because it would be ridiculous.
My point is an artist (or owner of the rights to a work) should be able to determine how to sell it, where to sell it, how much to sell it for and frankly whether to sell it or not. The flip side of the coin is that random people don't get to decide it is free for them.
-
Luxury. Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.
We don't have free wifi, and the internet doesn't go to foreign websites.
For someone who considers college to be a need for living, you're having a lot of fun calling my arguments fallacies. College education is not a need.
It is a need if you want to be a success. This isn't the 1950's where you can a good job with a diploma, get with the times. Yes there are plenty of super rich people that didn't go to college, but in reality the vast majority of people end up either being total failures or barely getting by.
You could have gotten a job that doesn't require a college education but you didn't.
In the real world it is hard to get a good job without college, I've tried it. You are just being a self-righteous bastard. Not all of us can run up daddy's credit line anytime we want to be spoiled.
I'm glad you're doing it, a college education is a great tool. It's not a requirement to life though.
Neither is bathing, and more people than not in the world get by without it.
It's still a luxury no matter how many classes you want to take.
No it isn't, no matter what perverted view of the world you have. The PC is a multi-purpose platform that can do a variety of tasks. An X-Box is a luxury.
You don't need a cell phone either. I lived just fine without one. I bought one because it was a convenience, not a need.
Yes it is, like I said I have no landline, and given that I do tutoring part time I need to be in touch anytime anywhere. So how do you propose I do that without a cell phone, telepathy? I don't have such talents.
I would dare say more people live in the world without a college education that with one.
And the majority of people in the world make 1/15 that of your average american or less.
-
But it's not given away. There is pretty clear (give or take) rules on what a user can do with a work they have published by someone else.
I'm not sure I understand what you are planning to say. I have posession of the data. I see the reasoning here like "it's not given away cause it's mine, and it's mine cause I haven't given it away", but that would be illogical, so I'll assume I don't understand you here.
[/quote]
No, it is because the people who really wanted it, got it. But people will pay for stuff that is over 2 years old (mostly at a reduced cost).
Care to explain why you brought this up? I don't really see the connection why it should an argument against my original point.
Good artists certainly do not always live well. There are artists who do good work and no one gives a damn and they are broke. Giving the work away for free isn't going to make them any richer.
But not poorer as well, if you look at the studies and experements of such "small" artists (well, in fact it got them richer). Of course you can argue how "good" is defined as well. Back to the original point, "3." was about the purpose of the law, not how good it is fullfilled.
Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.
1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.
2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.
I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?
While information is not soleley on the internet, you said, may I quote you:
That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone.
Basically claiming that information media are not important (logically, while not explicitly including newspapers as well)
I have to pay for any of those media.
And if you have the money to pay for the car, would you stop paying it if you need it to go to university and have no other way? That would be the question similar to the situation with the computer/internet here.
And to add some explanation: If I ask others for Internet access, (or if you would ask others to lend you a car) it doesn't mean the need goes away, it just means there are possiblities to get those things without paying. However in many places that's true for food as well (that's how people on the street often eat), but you wouldn't say you don't need food.
Back to "do I need a computer/internet", you can certainly justify it quite well, why paying for computer/internet access has by a huge margin the priority before paying for entertainment.
-
I'm not sure I understand what you are planning to say. I have posession of the data. I see the reasoning here like "it's not given away cause it's mine, and it's mine cause I haven't given it away", but that would be illogical, so I'll assume I don't understand you here.
If I go out and buy a Batman movie, I can't turn around and make copies for everyone. People are arguing here that once they make a Batman movie, everyone should be able to acquire it for free.
Care to explain why you brought this up? I don't really see the connection why it should an argument against my original point.
You mentioned that after about 2 years sales dropped. but it's not because the work got any worse. Most of the people who were going to buy it bought it already, but people still would buy it (as they often do).
But not poorer as well, if you look at the studies and experements of such "small" artists (well, in fact it got them richer). Of course you can argue how "good" is defined as well. Back to the original point, "3." was about the purpose of the law, not how good it is fullfilled.
The purpose of the law is to give artists the ability to hold their works. It does not REQUIRE them to sell it or horde it. And believe me, there are tons of starving artists no one gives a crap about.
While information is not soleley on the internet, you said, may I quote you:
That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone.
Basically claiming that information media are not important (logically, while not explicitly including newspapers as well)
I have to pay for any of those media.
I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it wasn't a basic need. Something that one could argue was their right to own without giving payment of some kind.
And if you have the money to pay for the car, would you stop paying it if you need it to go to university and have no other way? That would be the question similar to the situation with the computer/internet here.
I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way or that I am somehow required to own it to get my college degree.
And to add some explanation: If I ask others for Internet access, (or if you would ask others to lend you a car) it doesn't mean the need goes away, it just means there are possiblities to get those things without paying. However in many places that's true for food as well (that's how people on the street often eat), but you wouldn't say you don't need food.
You're absolutely correct. Food (and other needs) are required to be bought. Why should this (as a want OR a need) be any different?
You're arguing something different than everyone else. You're arguing if it's a need or a want. Regardless, you have to pay for it. If you classify it as one or the other it doesn't suddenly become free.
Back to "do I need a computer/internet", you can certainly justify it quite well, why paying for computer/internet access has by a huge margin the priority before paying for entertainment.
That's all I'm saying. It is a priority. You made a decision. Computer and internet first, entertainment later. At some point you're just going to run out of money. It doesn't mean those things that you didn't buy are now free now as some are trying to argue.
-
Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.
1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.
2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.
I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?
Nice how you're missing the point. If he didn't have a computer, he wouldn't even have any need for any computer games. Exactly what he has ATM is pretty much irrelevant.
Given that he has a computer, it is very much possible that with the internet and other necessities he just doesn't have enough money left over to buy original games. I know quite a few people who can't.
-
Nice how you're missing the point. If he didn't have a computer, he wouldn't even have any need for any computer games. Exactly what he has ATM is pretty much irrelevant.
Given that he has a computer, it is very much possible that with the internet and other necessities he just doesn't have enough money left over to buy original games. I know quite a few people who can't.
I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?
The games are not requirements. There are plenty of free (crappy) games to play.
I bought a TV but can't afford the ultra mega packages the companies offer, doesn't mean I just take them.
-
If I go out and buy a Batman movie, I can't turn around and make copies for everyone. People are arguing here that once they make a Batman movie, everyone should be able to acquire it for free.
That's how the law currently is, yes, you can't make copies for everyone. And, as I see it, people are not arguing to aquire it for free, they are arguing to share it for free after aquiring it, hence my original post. That's at least how I understood it. I might be wrong,
You mentioned that after about 2 years sales dropped. but it's not because the work got any worse. Most of the people who were going to buy it bought it already, but people still would buy it (as they often do).
Where did I mention that after about two years sales dropped? Even if I did, it still doesn't touch my original point.
The purpose of the law is to give artists the ability to hold their works. It does not REQUIRE them to sell it or horde it. And believe me, there are tons of starving artists no one gives a crap about.
You view of the purpose of the law doesn't reflect in the law itself, as I said earlier (and you ignored it). Well, and I again don't know what you are planing to say with the last two sentences. I see no logical connection of my statement with your argument.
I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it wasn't a basic need. Something that one could argue was their right to own without giving payment of some kind.
The legal definition of "basic need" has iirc a different opinion.
In both what's the definition of it, and what's the meaning of it. Certainly not to get it for free.
I tried to argue that information is necessary for a democracy, because you need it to vote - your counterargument was that internet isn't the only source of information. True, but I never claimed that, and it doesn't matter.
I said a) democracy needs information b) you always have to pay for this information in some way c) so using the money you pay anyway (for fullfilling a basic need of democracy) to use the method of internet access isn't a luxury
you claimed before my previous post that internet wasn't the only way to access information, completely missing what I was trying to say. Well, maybe my fault for not being clear enough.
I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way or that I am somehow required to own it to get my college degree.
if you need it to go to university and have no other way?
I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way
You have semmed to miss some part of the question.
You're absolutely correct. Food (and other needs) are required to be bought. Why should this (as a want OR a need) be any different?
You're arguing something different than everyone else. You're arguing if it's a need or a want. Regardless, you have to pay for it. If you classify it as one or the other it doesn't suddenly become free.
Please don't mix different topics, the context for this statement was if internet access is a basic need. I just tried to say that because you can somehow get it for free it doesn't make it no basic need, trying to refute an argument I expected to be brought up. I was right:
Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.
That's all I'm saying. It is a priority. You made a decision. Computer and internet first, entertainment later. At some point you're just going to run out of money. It doesn't mean those things that you didn't buy are now free now as some are trying to argue.
At some point you're just going to run out of money
Thanks, that's what people were trying to tell you. \o/
After you ran out of money, the financial loss of the company for YOU copying their work is zero.
Look back at page 6 top, at thesizzler. That's were this started.
Note: I don't want to drag on this discussion indefinitely, so'll not answer on points I feel are resolved, and the argument went of into an unrelated direction.
-
I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?
No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.
-
That's how the law currently is, yes, you can't make copies for everyone. And, as I see it, people are not arguing to aquire it for free, they are arguing to share it for free after aquiring it, hence my original post. That's at least how I understood it. I might be wrong,
The people you share it with would then acquire it for free. :wtf:
If you buy a movie and make me a copy, I didn't buy it. I acquired it for free.
Where did I mention that after about two years sales dropped? Even if I did, it still doesn't touch my original point.
"2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs."
You're talking about sales figures and mention that 2 years would be a good cutoff. Why exactly did you pick the 2 year time frame then?
You view of the purpose of the law doesn't reflect in the law itself, as I said earlier (and you ignored it). Well, and I again don't know what you are planing to say with the last two sentences. I see no logical connection of my statement with your argument.
Wait, copyright law isn't designed to give owners of works the ability to do what they want with their work?
Please describe what copyright law is intended to do then.
Copyright law has absolutely no connection with how much money an artist makes. It doesn't care whether you make more money, less money, no money, anything. The fact that artists live well or don't live well is completely irrelevant.
The legal definition of "basic need" has iirc a different opinion.
In both what's the definition of it, and what's the meaning of it. Certainly not to get it for free.
Yet people argue these works should be free because they need them.
I tried to argue that information is necessary for a democracy, because you need it to vote - your counterargument was that internet isn't the only source of information. True, but I never claimed that, and it doesn't matter.
I said a) democracy needs information b) you always have to pay for this information in some way c) so using the money you pay anyway (for fullfilling a basic need of democracy) to use the method of internet access isn't a luxury
you claimed before my previous post that internet wasn't the only way to access information, completely missing what I was trying to say. Well, maybe my fault for not being clear enough.
Then I don't see the point you ARE trying to make. Information is needed for democracy but the means to convey it isn't free.
Are you saying things that convey information should be free? TVs and radios and newspapers shouldn't be sold but handed out for free? I don't get the point you're making.
Please don't mix different topics, the context for this statement was if internet access is a basic need.
Which is isn't. My parents lived just fine without it. People all around the world live just fine without it. No one dies from lack of internet.
I just tried to say that because you can somehow get it for free it doesn't make it no basic need, trying to refute an argument I expected to be brought up. I was right:
Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.
I didn't say anything wasn't a basic need because you can buy it. I said that items that exist for your use for free can still be sold and it's a choice to do so.
You don't HAVE to buy a computer or pay for internet, you CHOOSE to do so because it is easier.
And no, computers are not a basic need. No matter how addicted to its use you may be.
Thanks, that's what people were trying to tell you. \o/
People were trying to tell me that people don't have unlimited funds? :wtf: I was aware of the fact that this was the case. I've never said people should have the funds to buy all the works in the world.
After you ran out of money, the financial loss of the company for YOU copying their work is zero.
Look back at page 6 top, at thesizzler. That's were this started.
I've yet to argue anything else. I don't care how much they may or may not lose. If they don't want to give it to me for free, I don't get it! It's not mine to take!
If you don't have the money to buy it, you don't get it! So sad. They own it. It is theirs.
It again boils down to greed. You WANT it, you feel you deserve it. You desire it, but you don't want to pay for it because you want other things more. So you steal it... oh I'm sorry, you don't "steal" it, you "illegally posses that which you have no right".
You want the new movies, songs, games. Things people put time and effort and money into. You want these things but don't want to buy them. Too damn bad. You didn't make them, you didn't create them. They aren't yours.
You want to benefit from someone's work without giving them anything for it. They don't want you to have it. You don't get it then.
-
I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?
No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.
It's a work that someone made that you now have.
It's a movie that someone thought up, wrote down, made, edited and distributed. The idea that you didn't take a physical thing from them is irrelevant since you don't want anything physical anyways.
But it still has value, you're taking that value from someone. You would think a college educated person would know this. (Or do you plagiarize all the time too?)
-
You're not getting it, so I'll break it down. This is my personal work. Photos I've taken, family videos, stories I wrote for whatever reason. I'm not going to put them up for sale.
You're telling me that by creating these works, I am an artist. I should not be able to control the distribution of these works. They belong to everyone.
No, you're the one who's not getting it. I've said this again and again: I, and everybody else, do not want your personal stuff. Because your family photos and home videos and personal stories are of a mostly sentimental value to you and you alone, nobody is asking you to doll them away for free.
-
No, you're the one who's not getting it. I've said this again and again: I, and everybody else, do not want your personal stuff. Because your family photos and home videos and personal stories are of a mostly sentimental value to you and you alone, nobody is asking you to doll them away for free.
Yea, you are.
You want big companies to doll out their work for free.
The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.
Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.
What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?
If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?
-
You want big companies to doll out their work for free.
The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.
Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.
What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?
If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?
Then let me amend my statement, because you're clearly not getting: all commercially released material should be made available. And, as I've said before, I buy the things I download.
-
You want big companies to doll out their work for free.
The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.
Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.
What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?
If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?
Then let me amend my statement, because you're clearly not getting: all commercially released material should be made available. And, as I've said before, I buy the things I download.
It's not really commercial if it's free. :wtf:
If they are free, why are people going to buy them?
Again, you are just showing this isn't about art being free, it's art you want but can't afford to be free.
-
The people you share it with would then acquire it for free. :wtf:
If you buy a movie and make me a copy, I didn't buy it. I acquired it for free.
If you wouldn't miss the difference, than you wouldn't make the example with your private photos. The difference is again, in the statement I made under "1." in the beginning.
"2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs."
You're talking about sales figures and mention that 2 years would be a good cutoff. Why exactly did you pick the 2 year time frame then?
Sales figures in contect with cinema? Well...
We came to 2 years because that's the time were movies go to free tv in most cases, meaning I can watch them for free anyway.
Still, the exact time is open to discussion, the point is the magnitude of protection.
Wait, copyright law isn't designed to give owners of works the ability to do what they want with their work?
Please describe what copyright law is intended to do then.
Copyright law has absolutely no connection with how much money an artist makes. It doesn't care whether you make more money, less money, no money, anything. The fact that artists live well or don't live well is completely irrelevant.
I described what copyright is intended to do already.
Then I don't see the point you ARE trying to make. Information is needed for democracy but the means to convey it isn't free.
I am saying access to information is a basic need in a democracy. We already clarified that basic needs are not free.
I didn't say anything wasn't a basic need because you can buy it. I said that items that exist for your use for free can still be sold and it's a choice to do so.
You don't HAVE to buy a computer or pay for internet, you CHOOSE to do so because it is easier.
And no, computers are not a basic need. No matter how addicted to its use you may be.
If you make that argumentation about a roof over your head and food, neither of those are basic needs either.
I don't have to buy or pay for food, there are other, legal ways to get it, hence it's no basic need.
People were trying to tell me that people don't have unlimited funds? :wtf: I was aware of the fact that this was the case. I've never said people should have the funds to buy all the works in the world.
I've yet to argue anything else. I don't care how much they may or may not lose. If they don't want to give it to me for free, I don't get it! It's not mine to take!
If you don't have the money to buy it, you don't get it! So sad. They own it. It is theirs.
It again boils down to greed. You WANT it, you feel you deserve it. You desire it, but you don't want to pay for it because you want other things more. So you steal it... oh I'm sorry, you don't "steal" it, you "illegally posses that which you have no right".
You want the new movies, songs, games. Things people put time and effort and money into. You want these things but don't want to buy them. Too damn bad. You didn't make them, you didn't create them. They aren't yours.
You want to benefit from someone's work without giving them anything for it. They don't want you to have it. You don't get it then.
You are making a different argument know, corresponding to my point 1.
But the original question of thesizzler was answered, even if you don't like that answer.
If you can't spend money anymore, the monetary piracy damage is zero. Thanks for agreeing on that one.
-
If you wouldn't miss the difference, than you wouldn't make the example with your private photos. The difference is again, in the statement I made under "1." in the beginning.
Being second hand owner doesn't make it any better. Well I didn't take it from MGM, I took it from Steve.
Sales figures in contect with cinema? Well...
We came to 2 years because that's the time were movies go to free tv in most cases, meaning I can watch them for free anyway.
Still, the exact time is open to discussion, the point is the magnitude of protection.
I'm pretty sure TV stations need to get the rights to show the movies on TV. It's still not "free".
I described what copyright is intended to do already.
"I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good."
As in "They should be able to sell it"? Is that what you meant?
I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good.If you make that argumentation about a roof over your head and food, neither of those are basic needs either.
I don't have to buy or pay for food, there are other, legal ways to get it, hence it's no basic need.
2 points.
1. Housing and food are very much basic needs. You'll die without them.
2. I already said food and housing aren't always free. They can and are sold. The idea that this information should somehow be free because it is a basic need is wrong because basic needs like food and water are sold.
You are making a different argument know, corresponding to my point 1.
But the original question of thesizzler was answered, even if you don't like that answer.
If you can't spend money anymore, the monetary piracy damage is zero. Thanks for agreeing on that one.
Thesizzler asked and answered a question no one asked.
You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.
You don't do other things with people's stuff and tell them it's ok cause you'll make them money. Let them take their stuff and run their business. Stop trying to pretend you're some kind of crusader for their protection when all you really want is their work for free.
-
You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.
First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.
The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.
Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?
If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car, a felony to have someone over for dinner and eat your food, a felony for public libraries to give out books (by the way, many do indeed have video games that you can check out for free), a felony to look at pictures of privately owned paintings...
Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:
A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.
Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.
Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.
-
First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.
The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.
No, that's why you buy the rights to it. That's what you're giving them money for. You're not giving these guys upwards of 70 bucks for a CD, it's the stuff that's on it.
Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?
Yea but two cars were purchased. One game was in your example.
If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car,
Except when you buy a car, you're buying the car itself. When you buy a movie, you're not buying "the movie" because it's not a real object. You're buying the rights to view the movie and show it to friends maybe if the rights say that.
It's how intellectual property works. That's why intellectual property and physical property are two different things.
Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:
A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.
The biggest reason it's wrong is because it's not yours. You keep telling me what I think the biggest problem is and then shooting it down. We call those strawmen.
But on to your major points.
A. Yes it is wrong. You saying it doesn't hurt them doesn't make it so. When THEY say "take our stuff for free" then you can say it's not wrong.
B. Again, they don't own the DVD, they own the rights to the work on it.
C. The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're taking work that isn't yours. Round and round we go.
Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.
Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.
Are copyright laws being broken? No! You know how I know? I can go into Best Buy and buy a game or movie. The company sold those DVDs to Best Buy knowing they'd sell them to me.
As long as you just flat out don't care that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, no amount of me saying it is going to change you. Thieves always seem to be rational in their thought.
You can argue all day why it doesn't hurt them, but you can't tell me why it's your decision to make. You've done nothing in regards to this work at all. You didn't buy it or make it.
No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?
-
No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?
The funny thing is that, despite piracy, people still seem quite willing to pay. (http://www.thewrap.com/article/2155)
-
Let me ask you this one BL. Most libraries have music they lend out just like books. If I go to the library and borrow that music, listen to it, and return it does that hurt the artist? So whats the difference if I download it, listen to it, and delete it?
One is legal the other isn't but both result in me listening to music I did not purchase.
-
No one seems to be able to answer how these companies are going to make money if no one buys their product. Why would they make multi million dollar productions if no one is going to pay them?
The funny things is that, despite piracy, people still seem quite willing to pay. (http://www.thewrap.com/article/2155)
Because most people have a conscience. Are you saying that if these movies and songs and such were free people would still shell out money for them in the same amounts? Really?
Do you think those people pay because they dislike their money? They want to help out the movie industry? Do they go to the store and think "Man I could have this item for free with no consequence, but I want to help Fox stay in business."
I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?
-
Let me ask you this one BL. Most libraries have music they lend out just like books. If I go to the library and borrow that music, listen to it, and return it does that hurt the artist? So whats the difference if I download it, listen to it, and delete it?
What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.
One is legal the other isn't but both result in me listening to music I did not purchase.
You just answered it. One is legal. Why are people arguing me on anything but a legal standpoint? All I've been saying is "It's illegal, stop doing it" No one seems to care.
-
You guys keep pounding away that it doesn't hurt their business. It doesn't matter if it hurts their business or you make them a gazillion dollars. It's not your stuff to decide how it gets used.
First of all, if we were dealing with stealing something like a car, something that could not just be copied and pasted however many times you wanted, I'd agree with you. If I designed a car that with the press of a button could duplicate with no cost whatsoever, hell, I'd give the everyone in the world fourteen cars each.
The game owns the IP to the game, not each individual copy. Or do you honestly think they own each copy? Can they just waltz up to your door and demand that you hand back their game? No.
Giving a friend a copy of a game is less wrong than a mother giving her car to her son when she buys another one. Or do you think we should ban that, too?
If video game and music producer's policies were instituted everywhere in life, it'd be a felony to let someone borrow your car, a felony to have someone over for dinner and eat your food, a felony for public libraries to give out books (by the way, many do indeed have video games that you can check out for free), a felony to look at pictures of privately owned paintings...
Seriously. If you claim that you made the game, or if you start selling your copies, then the companies can whine and ***** all day long, but once again:
A) If it does not hurt the companies it is not wrong.
B) The companies don't own the DVDs you bought.
C) The biggest reason stealing is wrong is because you're denying other people's resources. This does not fall into that category thanks to copy and paste.
Now let's say it's actual piracy instead of giving friends a copy of the game you bought. What changes? Not a whole lot. The Pirate Bay was just like eBay except everything was free, and that when a transaction takes place, no one has to give their copy to someone else.
Now if you think eBay is a morally incorrect way of doing things, then we have an issue bigger than this here.
While I'm not so sure about saying give it back, if you read any standard Eula, it says they can terminate the agreement (at which you have to destroy all copies and such) if you go against it.
But this post is starting to get redundant. And with some of these comments I'm starting to really hope there's some trolls at work here.
Cliff-notes for people:
1) Whether piracy helps them or not doesn't matter: they own the legal rights to the work. They can do whatever they want with it. You can't. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your legislator. Otherwise they're well within their rights to act against piracy.
2) You don't have the right to get whatever you want for free (the mere suggestion of that annoys me nearly as much as the people who seem to think they have a constitutional right to not be offended).
-
Because most people have a conscience. Are you saying that if these movies and songs and such were free people would still shell out money for them in the same amounts? Really?
Do you think those people pay because they dislike their money? They want to help out the movie industry? Do they go to the store and think "Man I could have this item for free with no consequence, but I want to help Fox stay in business."
I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?
Earlier I referenced five studies which say that file-sharing doesn't affect sales--or if they do, the end result is positive. People, pirates included, still seem to be buying original material despite the amount of content being downloaded.
Secondly, a car is not intellectual property. Stealing it is a crime which is of a provable, definable loss to the owner of the vehicle. Downloading "pirated" content does not constitute theft because there is no definable loss in terms of money and the hard data seems to show that it helps, rather than harms, the organizations that deride it so.
-
Earlier I referenced five studies which say that file-sharing doesn't affect sales--or if they do, the end result is positive. People, pirates included, still seem to be buying original material despite the amount of content being downloaded.
The reason sales aren't affected is because large amounts of people are still doing the legal thing and buying the product.
If these products were free with no legal ramifications, why would people buy them?
Secondly, a car is not intellectual property. Stealing it is a crime which is of a provable, definable loss to the owner of the vehicle. Downloading "pirated" content does not constitute theft because there is no definable loss in terms of money and the hard data seems to show that it helps, rather than harms, the organizations that deride it so.
You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?
Even if I steal the car, drive it around and get them some advertising, tell all my friends to buy one. Write a kicking review about it? I wasn't going to buy it anyways so all my effort will obviously lead to a net gain or break even, right?
What if I wrote them a check for the cost of the material? Would that be cool? How much metal and plastic is in there? We'd be cool then, right? They didn't lose any material.
-
Oh COME ON. I "pirate" stuff all the time. I also buy stuff all the time. Do I buy everything that I "pirate"? No. Because some of it is, frankly, crap. I don't buy crap. So, given that I can get all the stuff for free, why do I buy it?
Because 1) That's the only way the industry gets to know about my preferences. If I don't buy the stuff I like, chances are the stuff I like won't be produced anymore.
2) The artists I like get at least some money for their work, so that they can continue working.
3) Because I can get a few bits of additional content that way. In the case of movies, I get commentaries and making ofs. In the case of Music, maybe a bonus DVD with live performances or something like that.
I'm just flabbergasted that the wholesale theft of IP is ok because it doesn't hurt the company, but if I steal 1 car it's a huge no no. Can we steal physical products if it doesn't irreparably hurt the company?
Oh, but there is a difference. Stealing a car means stealing something that somebody else has bought, be it the owner of the car or the owner of a car dealership. The company that produced the car has been paid already, and aside from guarantee commitments, has nothing to do with the car anymore. If I "pirate" a copy of a movie, who exactly has been hurt? Where is the loss? The MAFIAA equates one downloaded copy with one (or more!) lost sales. In my case, the sale is only lost if I do not like what is being offered.
In other words, please show us the victims of the crime of "piracy". In hard statistics, please.
BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.
You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?
Even if I steal the car, drive it around and get them some advertising, tell all my friends to buy one. Write a kicking review about it? I wasn't going to buy it anyways so all my effort will obviously lead to a net gain or break even, right?
What if I wrote them a check for the cost of the material? Would that be cool? How much metal and plastic is in there? We'd be cool then, right? They didn't lose any material.
The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.
-
The reason sales aren't affected is because large amounts of people are still doing the legal thing and buying the product.
If these products were free with no legal ramifications, why would people buy them?
"Large amounts of people" include so-called pirates such as myself, who buy the things they download for whatever reason. In my case, it's because the source material tends to be better for whatever reason.
You can't define how much a movie costs? Really?
You're missing the point. I said that piracy does not constitute theft because there is no definable monetary loss, so the costs of making a movie or whatever else can be downloaded do not factor in the debate.
-
Oh COME ON. I "pirate" stuff all the time. I also buy stuff all the time. Do I buy everything that I "pirate"? No. Because some of it is, frankly, crap. I don't buy crap. So, given that I can get all the stuff for free, why do I buy it?
Because 1) That's the only way the industry gets to know about my preferences. If I don't buy the stuff I like, chances are the stuff I like won't be produced anymore.
2) The artists I like get at least some money for their work, so that they can continue working.
3) Because I can get a few bits of additional content that way. In the case of movies, I get commentaries and making ofs. In the case of Music, maybe a bonus DVD with live performances or something like that.
I like how you sandwich "The artists don't go broke" in between "I can get more stuff!"
Oh, but there is a difference. Stealing a car means stealing something that somebody else has bought, be it the owner of the car or the owner of a car dealership. The company that produced the car has been paid already, and aside from guarantee commitments, has nothing to do with the car anymore. If I "pirate" a copy of a movie, who exactly has been hurt? Where is the loss? The MAFIAA equates one downloaded copy with one (or more!) lost sales. In my case, the sale is only lost if I do not like what is being offered.
In other words, please show us the victims of the crime of "piracy". In hard statistics, please.
You want to know the names of the companies you're stealing from? The victims are "owners of the works".
That's it. There is no flash. No song and dance number. They own it, you took it.
If I steal a car from a dealership and take it on a wild chase and they get extra publicity and earn more money than if I hadn't taken it, is it still theft even though they earned a profit? I'm just curious what the profit ratio is that makes it ok to take things.
BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.
These statements make no sense. I see that they are words, but the connections don't add up for me.
I ignore what people seem to do? If they wanted you to be able to test it out for free, they'd show it for free in it's entirety. Poor business model? Maybe. If you guys are so intent on changing how they do business, why don't you just boycott them until they do? Oh wait, you'd have to give up the stuff. My bad.
The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.
So if I steal it from the guys who produce it, it's ok?
-
"Large amounts of people" include so-called pirates such as myself, who buy the things they download for whatever reason. In my case, it's because the source material tends to be better for whatever reason.
Yes pirated material. But if the works were free as you seem to think they should be, why would people buy them?
These companies go "You win, we can't stop people from taking our works, we're going to give them out for free" Where does the money come from then?
I know you don't mean to think other people should pay full price for works to prop up a companies profits while you steal works. That would just make you a jerk.
You're missing the point. I said that piracy does not constitute theft because there is no definable monetary loss, so the costs of making a movie or whatever else can be downloaded do not factor in the debate.
So the DVDs I buy from Best Buy with the movies on them cost 20 dollars? That's all physical costs for the packaging and DVD itself?
-
Yes pirated material. But if the works were free as you seem to think they should be, why would people buy them?
These companies go "You win, we can't stop people from taking our works, we're going to give them out for free" Where does the money come from then?
I know you don't mean to think other people should pay full price for works to prop up a companies profits while you steal works. That would just make you a jerk.
Mmm, delicious flamebait.
The "why" varies from one individual to another; I buy the material I download because the source is always better. The point is that stuff is still being bought at a greater rate than ever before (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars), and the pirates are some of the biggest customers. If downloading equaled theft, if every copy distributed via the internet constituted a lost sale, all the big publishers and producers would have gone out of business a long time ago. If "illegal" downloading suddenly disappeared tomorrow, sales of movies, CDs, and games wouldn't deviate from current trends one iota, because the alleged loss incurred by downloading is statistically zero.
-
I like how you sandwich "The artists don't go broke" in between "I can get more stuff!"
Is that wrong? After all, isn't that what this industry thing is all about? Getting stuff people will buy to the people who will buy it?
You want to know the names of the companies you're stealing from? The victims are "owners of the works".
That's it. There is no flash. No song and dance number. They own it, you took it.
There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the number of downloads and the number of sales. And why should I be interested in supporting people who produce stuff that I don't like?
If I steal a car from a dealership and take it on a wild chase and they get extra publicity and earn more money than if I hadn't taken it, is it still theft even though they earned a profit? I'm just curious what the profit ratio is that makes it ok to take things.
Of course it's theft. However, can you define the exact amount of damage a downloaded song or movie represents? It's easy to do this with a car, since cars are usually not reproduced by the person stealing it.
BTW, one thing you seem to ignore is that people seem to use "pirated" downloads as something like a free library. Yes, there are people who get all their stuff from the free library. But many use it like I do, as an opportunity to check if the stuff that I "borrow" is stuff that I want, and thus being worthy of my money.
These statements make no sense. I see that they are words, but the connections don't add up for me.
I ignore what people seem to do? If they wanted you to be able to test it out for free, they'd show it for free in it's entirety. Poor business model? Maybe. If you guys are so intent on changing how they do business, why don't you just boycott them until they do? Oh wait, you'd have to give up the stuff. My bad.
The Industry is grown up, you know. It can defend itself. (Unfortunately, it seems to think that bullying, trolling and sticking its fingers in its ears while screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are legitimate tactics).
And as someone who likes to be an informed customer, I like to test stuff before I buy it. If the industry doesn't give me the opportunity to do so, is that my problem?
The point your analogy is missing is that cars are rarely, if ever, stolen from the company that produced them.
So if I steal it from the guys who produce it, it's ok?
No. It's just a bad analogy. This whole thing is, IMHO, not about stealing, it's about copying.
-
Mmm, delicious flamebait.
The "why" varies from one individual to another; I buy the material I download because the source is always better. The point is that stuff is still being bought at a greater rate than ever before (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars), and the pirates are some of the biggest customers. If downloading equaled theft, if every copy distributed via the internet constituted a lost sale, all the big publishers and producers would have gone out of business a long time ago.
You're pushing the piracy by saying it's promoting the sales of these things and then using that as a justification for it being free.
If you argue that you're helping their profits, you're saying that these are things that are being sold. Things that shouldn't be free. Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?
Should the work be free for me to have or not free for me to have. You went from saying art should be free and taking intellectual property isn't theft to being a guy helping these companies make massive amounts of money by selling intellectual property.
Which is it?
Should movies and songs and such be free for everyone or are they the right of the owners to sell for a profit?
-
You're pushing the piracy by saying it's promoting the sales of these things and then using that as a justification for it being free.
If you argue that you're helping their profits, you're saying that these are things that are being sold. Things that shouldn't be free. Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?
Woah, hold up. Where did I say that I was selling the stuff that I downloaded? I have never made money in such a way.
Should the work be free for me to have or not free for me to have. You went from saying art should be free and taking intellectual property isn't theft to being a guy helping these companies make massive amounts of money by selling intellectual property.
Which is it?
Should movies and songs and such be free for everyone or are they the right of the owners to sell for a profit?
Uh, again, I never said I was selling the things I downloaded. As for the issue of whether such content should or should not be free, I guess what I've been trying to say is that I don't see any reason why it can't be both. I download content that I like and pay for it, therefore providing incentive to create new content.
-
Is that wrong? After all, isn't that what this industry thing is all about? Getting stuff people will buy to the people who will buy it?
No, I just like how it highlights how you're really only concerned with what you get out of it. Not any real adherence to the law.
There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the number of downloads and the number of sales. And why should I be interested in supporting people who produce stuff that I don't like?
Because you're taking stuff from people you do like.
Did they tell you that you could download their stuff for free? I daresay they would say the opposite. If you like them so much, why aren't you heeding their pleas?
Of course it's theft. However, can you define the exact amount of damage a downloaded song or movie represents? It's easy to do this with a car, since cars are usually not reproduced by the person stealing it.
Yes, it's called "the amount they were going to sell it for".
The Industry is grown up, you know. It can defend itself. (Unfortunately, it seems to think that bullying, trolling and sticking its fingers in its ears while screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are legitimate tactics).
And as someone who likes to be an informed customer, I like to test stuff before I buy it. If the industry doesn't give me the opportunity to do so, is that my problem?
Yes, they are grown up. You just said they are big boys but somehow you don't feel the need to follow the rules.
You don't see the fun in claiming that they are basically acting like kids but you're going "I don't like that rule, so I'm not gonna follow it!"
-
Woah, hold up. Where did I say that I was selling the stuff that I downloaded? I have never made money in such a way.
You read that wrong.
You: Works should be free!
Them: No, we're going to sell them for 20 bucks.
You: I'm going to download them!
Them: No, it's ours and we don't want you to. Buy it if you want it.
You: I'm helping you guys make money!
Them: Wait, you just said it should be free. Now you're helping us sell it?
Uh, again, I never said I was selling the things I downloaded. As for the issue of whether such content should or should not be free, I guess what I've been trying to say is that I don't see any reason why it can't be both. I download content that I like and pay for it, therefore providing incentive to create new content.
If these companies give away their work for free, why would people buy it?
Are you going to go into a store and see two copies of a movie. One labeled "20 bucks" and one labeled "free"?
You really don't see why that might not turn a profit?
-
You read that wrong.
Did I?
Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?
Seems rather plain and understandable to me.
If these companies give away their work for free, why would people buy it?
Are you going to go into a store and see two copies of a movie. One labeled "20 bucks" and one labeled "free"?
You really don't see why that might not turn a profit?
The big factor you're missing is that the material has been free on peer-to-peer networks for a long time, and though the technology is known and available to millions upon millions of internet users, sales of movies, games, and music albums are going up, not down. The material has been free on the internet for a while but--here's a shocker--people are still buying, apparently.
-
Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit. Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.
I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.
You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)
Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?
I torrented GTA4. It was reasonably good, didn't run that well, etc you know the rest. But in the end, I did buy it for the multiplayer. Not to mention Rockstar has actually made some patches...
The games I torrent and don't buy stay on my hard drive most of the time, but I don't play them more than a few hours. I probably should delete them, because they haven't been run in months... This huge hard drive can be useful at times.
Thank you for proving my point. You don't have to buy them and you don't delete them because you play them from time to time.
I played them a couple hours total and never touched them since. I thought it was clear that I am too lazy to delete anything...
-
What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.
That was a perfectly legitimate question, since both are a way of listening to it while paying nothing.
I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.
-
I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?
No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.
It's a work that someone made that you now have.
It's a movie that someone thought up, wrote down, made, edited and distributed. The idea that you didn't take a physical thing from them is irrelevant since you don't want anything physical anyways.
But it still has value, you're taking that value from someone. You would think a college educated person would know this. (Or do you plagiarize all the time too?)
I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?
Copyright is a statutory or common law right of authors, artists, and developers (or other holders of a copyright) to publish their works, and to prevent others from copying their works. Infringement includes the unauthorized or unlicensed copying of a work subject to copyright.
Source (http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/infringement.asp)
Their works are not their property like their TV, and so are covered under a different part of the legal code.
EDIT: I'll push this a step further and cite a Supreme Court ruling about this very issue:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Dowling vs. United States (1985) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985))
Now unless you're going to start saying that the Supreme Court's ruling somehow doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your view, that should definitively settle the issue of whether or not copying is theft.
Now loud and clear so everyone can hear it:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT
-
What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.
I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.
I asked that about you guys side first :P
-
So, it appears the judge of the trial might have been legally disqualified from judging it in the first place...
Google-translation from Swedish article (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdi.se%2Favdelningar%2Fartikel.aspx%3FArticleID%3D2009\04\23\334366%26o%3Dsp3%26SectionID%3DEttan%26menusection%3DStartsidan%3BHuvudnyheter&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=), english news will undoubtedly spew up as the day progresses.
-
Hmm, that link appears to be working improperly. Here's the Torrentfreak article on the subject (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-lawyer-is-biased-calls-for-a-retrial-090423/).
The copyright industry likes to have the outcome of processes clear before engaging them so it’s perhaps unsurprising that SR today revealed that the judge Tomas Norström is in league with it on many fronts. The judge has several engagements - together with the prosecution lawyers for the movie and music industries.
Swedish Association of Copyright (SFU) - The judge Tomas Norström is a member of this discussion forum that holds seminars, debates and releases the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review. Other members of this outfit? Henrik Pontén (Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), Monique Wadsted (movie industry lawyer) and Peter Danowsky (IFPI) - the latter is also a member of the board of the association.
Swedish Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (SFIR) - The judge Tomas Norström sits on the board of this association that works for stronger copyright laws. Last year they held the Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies.
.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) - Tomas Norström works for the foundation that oversees the .se name domain and advises on domain name disputes. His colleague at the foundation? Monique Wadsted.
There are several renowned lawyers and judicial commentators that are attacking Tomas Norström’s decision to take the case, in spite of having a clear conflict of interest.
-
That was a perfectly legitimate question, since both are a way of listening to it while paying nothing.
I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.
What is it a legitimate question to? Does coming up with a legal way of listening to music make the pirated one ok?
-
I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?
How come copying songs and movies isn't bad, but copying for a paper somehow is? Neither one hurts the author?
Is quoting without citing a removal of profits from that person? Why can't I just take the quotes then?
Their works are not their property like their TV, and so are covered under a different part of the legal code.
EDIT: I'll push this a step further and cite a Supreme Court ruling about this very issue:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Dowling vs. United States (1985) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985))
Now unless you're going to start saying that the Supreme Court's ruling somehow doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your view, that should definitively settle the issue of whether or not copying is theft.
Now loud and clear so everyone can hear it:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT
So I went and looked up the Section 2314 and the law to take a gander at what you said.
Firstly, the guy didn't fight the copyright infringement law so he knew they didn't belong to him. So good luck with that.
Secondly, 2314 deals specifically with the transportation of, not merely the possession of.
Also, in the majority opinion a Justice says this: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." and "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."
Nowhere in this does it say it is ok to hold or use these works. Show me a law where someone took them to court for copyright infringement and it was thrown out because they made a copy.
"Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement"
Why didn't he appeal the copyright if he clearly wasn't doing anything wrong?
-
I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?
How come copying songs and movies isn't bad, but copying for a paper somehow is? Neither one hurts the author?
Is quoting without citing a removal of profits from that person? Why can't I just take the quotes then?
You are aware that plagiarism is the act of claiming someone else's work as your own, aren't you?
-
Did I?
I'm guessing so, since you refuse to answer anything about it.
Seems rather plain and understandable to me.
So you like the way these companies operate, so you're going to help them earn a profit. That way they can continue the way they operate now. That's not anything you've argued before.
Do you want them to continue this way or convince them to change how they do things? If you're helping them earn a profit and are doing it by copyright infringement, they're not going to stop.
The big factor you're missing is that the material has been free on peer-to-peer networks for a long time, and though the technology is known and available to millions upon millions of internet users, sales of movies, games, and music albums are going up, not down. The material has been free on the internet for a while but--here's a shocker--people are still buying, apparently.
Because people don't want to steal. Those people have a conscience. If they don't want me to take it, I don't take it.
If it should be free, why are you glad these people are shelling out large amounts of cash for it?
Why do you think these people are paying money? Does the thought ever enter your mind that "It is the only legal means of doing so"?
Should the work be free or should it be for sale? It can't be both.
-
You are aware that plagiarism is the act of claiming someone else's work as your own, aren't you?
I'm well aware of it. But for some reason throwing in "I didn't come up with this" doesn't fly.
You're not taking money from this author. You're not hurting sales. So what's the problem?
-
Plagiarism is a different issue. It's not the act of copying, it's the act of claiming something as your own. You are allowed to use it as long as you indicate that it isn't your original work.
Also, the library example doesn't work, because the library has to buy the items for you to be able to borrow them. The work is still bought, and after the length of time, it is returned to the purchaser. This applies to both books and music/movies/software.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT
Fair enough, but does that make it any more okay to do it?
-
Plagiarism is a different issue. It's not the act of copying, it's the act of claiming something as your own. You are allowed to use it as long as you indicate that it isn't your original work.
I'm pretty sure you're required to say exactly who gave it to you and where you got it from. You have to give credit to the author.
Fair enough, but does that make it any more okay to do it?
It's not really fair enough. What he means is copyright infringement isn't larceny, which is the theft of a physical object.
Why are people forced to pay money for copyright infringement if it's not taking something of value?
I mean I agree with you ssmit that it's not right. But the idea that it's not theft because it's not a physical object is completely bunk.
-
So I went and looked up the Section 2314 and the law to take a gander at what you said.
Firstly, the guy didn't fight the copyright infringement law so he knew they didn't belong to him. So good luck with that.
Secondly, 2314 deals specifically with the transportation of, not merely the possession of.
Also, in the majority opinion a Justice says this: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." and "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."
Nowhere in this does it say it is ok to hold or use these works. Show me a law where someone took them to court for copyright infringement and it was thrown out because they made a copy.
"Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement"
Why didn't he appeal the copyright if he clearly wasn't doing anything wrong?
As I said repeatedly, it was an issue of whether or not copyright infringement equals theft, which was the point you made and I have disproven it with a supreme court ruling, which appearently means nothing to you since you disagree with it.
I mean I agree with you ssmit that it's not right. But the idea that it's not theft because it's not a physical object is completely bunk.
So supreme court rulings mean nothing to you because it doesn't fit your preconstructed viewpoint. How does this make you any different from the anti-abortion nazis?
-
As I said repeatedly, it was an issue of whether or not copyright infringement equals theft, which was the point you made and I have disproven it with a supreme court ruling, which appearently means nothing to you since you disagree with it.
No you proved the Supreme court ruled that the transportation of the works didn't fit the description of the law.
The very fact that they never touched on possession is glaringly obvious.
The guy wasn't transporting a right, so he couldn't be charged with that.
They didn't say he couldn't be busted for copyright infringement, they said he couldn't be busted for the transportation of what is not physical.
That's in the same vein of the TPB guys getting busted not for possession of the material or even in the act of transferring it.
So supreme court rulings mean nothing to you because it doesn't fit your preconstructed viewpoint. How does this make you any different from the anti-abortion nazis?
Did the Supreme Court remove copyright law when I wasn't paying attention? If you have a work and someone takes you to court for copyright infringement and they make you pay money for the value of the work, doesn't that mean "theft"? You know theft, taking someone's property without their consent? (Intellectual Property would in fact be "property". It's in the name)
That's not larceny, which is the act of taking a physical object.
Copyright law specifically touches on (pun!) who owns what when dealing with things that can't really be touched.
-
Copyright law specifically touches on (pun!) who owns what when dealing with things that can't really be touched.
Excuse me while I catch my breath after laughing so hard at that hilarious pun you just did there.
Also, I'll need to get the **** into this authoring business. It apparently means I can sue people for facilitating the passing around of books (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/0323202&art_pos=16).
-
I must say that in my brief absense, I have come to a change of heart. I believe it is wrong to even give away what you rightfully bought to others. Preferrably you should only read a book one time and then recycle it. Libraries should start charging for their services, and all proceeds should go to the author associations (which I of course plan to become a member of) to fight the passing around of books second hand, and perhaps a trickle to the makers of the works being abused in these ways. It seems perfectly alright now.
-
I love strawmen. :D
-
Yeah, whatever. Who were you again?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1159216&art_pos=14 was kinda interesting too, too bad it got out, though.
-
Yay more straw men! We're not gonna have to worry about any crows!
You just keep on arguing points no one brought up. That'll really put me in my place.
-
Actually, I gave **** all about the five pages or so that sprung up while I was indisposed.
-
So much so you're back to make crazy arguments and swear casually.
-
Nah, it was really more that I was kinda interested in hearing your opinions on the "pirate bay for books" thing. Too bad you don't seem to have an opinion on it. I guess I'm a thief for buying used litterature, though. A couple of times I even bought from people I hadn't met before, courtesy of the internet. Makes me a cybercriminal too, then?
-
You just keep on arguing points no one brought up. That'll really put me in my place.
Um. We brought them up.
-
I didn't even read it.
But I'll let you sum up the major points.
Is the action these people are doing violate some kind of criminal or civil law? Is the owner of the work asking them to stop? Does the owner have legal recourse to stop this action?
Tada, argument over.
-
You just keep on arguing points no one brought up. That'll really put me in my place.
Um. We brought them up.
And then you shot them down. That's what makes them straw men.
-
I didn't even read it.
But I'll let you sum up the major points.
Is the action these people are doing violate some kind of criminal or civil law? Is the owner of the work asking them to stop? Does the owner have legal recourse to stop this action?
Tada, argument over.
I suggest you actually read the article.
-
I didn't even read it.
But I'll let you sum up the major points.
Is the action these people are doing violate some kind of criminal or civil law? Is the owner of the work asking them to stop? Does the owner have legal recourse to stop this action?
Tada, argument over.
I suggest you actually read the article.
I did. And it offers zero information.
It doesn't say if renting books is illegal. Is renting books legal if it's an original copy?
Why would I know what Finland's copyright law is in regards to books?
But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"
-
No, it's quite legal to rent out books you own.
I guess it's time for you to read up on the Berne convention then. Doing so would brush you up on just about all copyright laws in the world.
-
No, it's quite legal to rent out books you own.
Then that lobby doesn't have much of a case, does it?
I guess it's time for you to read up on the Berne convention then. Doing so would brush you up on just about all copyright laws in the world.
How exactly does Finland's copyright law affect me here? If I possess copyrighted works here and I get hauled to court, is another countries copyright law going to help me?
"Did you buy that copy of 'Weekend at Bernies II'?"
"No sir, I did not"
"What is your defense then?"
"It's legal in Zanzibar!"
-
That interesting straw man is precisely why you should read up on it.
-
That interesting straw man is precisely why you should read up on it.
What other countries do in regards to their copyright law has zero bearing on what could happen to me here.
If Sweden removes all penalties for copyright law, I suddenly wouldn't get off the hook here.
If China puts super restrictive laws on copyrights, it won't affect me here.
-
Yay more straw men! We're not gonna have to worry about any crows!
You just keep on arguing points no one brought up. That'll really put me in my place.
If anyone is the king of fallacious arguing it's you.
No you proved the Supreme court ruled that the transportation of the works didn't fit the description of the law.
The judge's opinion made it very clear that copywrite infringement is not theft.
You know theft, taking someone's property without their consent? (Intellectual Property would in fact be "property". It's in the name)
That's not larceny, which is the act of taking a physical object.
Theft is another word for larceny.
Main Entry: larceny
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theft
source (http://thesaurus.reference.com/the?q=larceny&search=search)
You said so yourself, copyright infringement should equal theft, inspite of of supreme court justice opinions thesaurus and legal definitions.
-
I'm pretty sure you're required to say exactly who gave it to you and where you got it from. You have to give credit to the author.
True, I forgot to add that.
What he means is copyright infringement isn't larceny, which is the theft of a physical object.
But the idea that it's not theft because it's not a physical object is completely bunk.
That's what I think too. I should really have put "if it was either copyright infringement of theft it's still wrong".
-
Theft is another word for larceny.
Main Entry: larceny
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: theft
source (http://thesaurus.reference.com/the?q=larceny&search=search)
You said so yourself, copyright infringement should equal theft, inspite of of supreme court justice opinions thesaurus and legal definitions.
I love that the link you gave also says robbery and burglary are the synonyms to theft. The are clearly fundamentally different.
Even in the Wikipedia link you gave says you really can't answer the question of it being theft.
Taking of physical property - Larceny
Taking of intellectual proprty - copyright infringement
They are both theft because theft is taking property which doesn't belong to you without consent.
-
No, because copyright infringement isn't taking anything, it is making copies without permission, but you keep insisting in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary that this is not the case.
-
No, because copyright infringement isn't taking anything, it is making copies without permission, but you keep insisting in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary that this is not the case.
No, it's not taking anything physical. That's why it's not larceny. You're taking intellectual property, which is why they take you to court and make you pay money, because there is no physical object to give back.
You pay money because it is worth something, and you took it. That is "theft".
-
The dictionary definition of larceny is theft, as I pointed out.
-
But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"
law == right?
so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?
-
But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"
law == right?
so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?
No. It would be wrong to break it, however.
--------------
The dictionary definition of larceny is theft, as I pointed out.
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.
The unauthorized taking and removal of the Personal Property of another by an individual who intends to permanently deprive the owner of it; a crime against the right of possession.
Larceny generally refers to nonviolent theft. It is a common-law term developed by the royal courts of England in the seventeenth century. In the United States, most jurisdictions have eliminated the crime of Larceny from statutory codes, in favor of a general theft statute.
[...]
-
how does one 'take' something immaterial.
-
how does one 'take' something immaterial.
Telepathy?
-
But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"
law == right?
so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?
I would be wrong to argue against it as illegal, so yes?
There are things that are illegal that I wish were legal (prostitution for example, I think it's between the two people)
There are legal things I wish were illegal but they are, so I can't do a damn thing.
-
how does one 'take' something immaterial.
Telepathy?
I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.
I don't know why we have things like copyrights, trademarks and patents. None of these things deal with the theft of a physical object so obviously there would be no need for them!
I don't know why we even bother with Good Old Games, right? Let's give away Freespace 2 to everyone! It's completely legal right? No chance of a lawsuit? Zero?
-
so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?
If you find a way to protect the rights of the content creator and still allow you to get their stuff for free. I'll be singing your praises.
If I do something illegal, I expect to pay a penalty. Just because you believe something should be legal, doesn't mean that you can willfully disobey the law without expecting a penalty.
As for how to take something immaterial, I believe the content I create IS materially valuable. I pay developers and artists to help me create that content, it takes time, effort, money for materials, money for tools. We have an office, that takes money for rent. I have to feed my family, put clothes of my son and pay the rent on my living quarters.
Not that anyone here is pirating the works my company makes, nor am I under any illusions as to the quality of some of the products we've made in the past, we're not a multi-million dollar studio with huge resources, and we make niche stuff, but for the sake of argument...
It is offered for sale to defray those costs, pay those people, buy those tools and maybe some margin that lets me make the rent and feed my son. You did not pay for it, you decided my work was not worth paying for, but worth enjoying. You broke the law. Period. Its great that you don't agree with that position, but I happen to think that people who decide they want my stuff and don't compensate me for it are criminals. I very much consider it theft, unless *I* choose to give it away for free. You don't get to choose for me. The current legal structure agrees with me. Perhaps I would still argue that it should be illegal if the current legal position were reversed, more likely I would not make stuff. I personally can't afford to be that generous.
As much as you want it to be free, and for your actions not to have consequences, that is not the case. Copyright laws exist to protect me, and people like me, and for better or worse, they don't differentiate between "classes" of people. I enjoy the same protection under the law as EA or Warner Brothers.
As it turns out, we don't make enough extra money to pay me, so I have to keep playing rent-a-cop day by day. We do make enough money to pay the rents of the current full time staff, barely.
Are you still going to take my stuff? Is it still not theft? Should I not bother, lay those people off and tell them to flip hamburgers? Maybe my stuffs not good enough to be for sale. I would rather not have that decided for me by lazy bastards who would rather just "not pay for it, its not real, so why should I have to?" I want to fail because my stuff is not good, not because someone decided it just shouldn't be for sale.
If you want to knowingly break the law, and are willing to take the penalty, that sounds like a great venue to make your case. Maybe you will win. The Pirate Bay folks have yet to prove that out.
-
I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.
Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.
-
I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.
Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.
The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.
-
I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.
Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.
The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.
Which is a physical object. That example in the given context was obviously to equal it to theft, since you were comparing having a computer but pirating the software for it. The link between copyright infringement and theft (of an object) was quite blatant.
-
Call it "bob" for all I care.
The semantic argument just gets you out of justifying your actions. Fine, its not theft, its "bob." You bobbed it. Bobbing is against the law.
So, you get in a taxi, the driver takes you 2 blocks, you jump out without paying. Whats the difference? That service isn't material, really, is it? Hell, he may even be getting paid an hourly wage of some sort. You just harmlessly "bobbed" it.
After all, he'd be burning that gas anyway, idling at the stand or looking for another fare. And your feet hurt, you'd rather not walk. And that 2 bucks will come in handy when you get to the pub.
-
I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.
Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.
The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.
Which is a physical object. That example in the given context was obviously to equal it to theft, since you were comparing having a computer but pirating the software for it. The link between copyright infringement and theft (of an object) was quite blatant.
No, the comparison was "is it ok to take stuff if you buy something and can't afford the stuff that goes with it"
Your argument again proves it has nothing to do with it being needed for the first object. (fuel for a plane, software for a computer). Your point hinges on the fact the software isn't physical.
Unfortunately for you, current law almost everywhere regards intellectual property as property. You can take it without consent, but you have to pay for it.
The judge isn't going to care if you can touch the rights or not when you're in court with MGM or someone for having all their movies.
Are you saying we're reading the law wrong or you are somehow above it?
-
The semantic argument just gets you out of justifying your actions.
Nope, just clarifying some things to the copyright nazis.
Unfortunately for you, current law almost everywhere regards intellectual property as property. You can take it without consent, but you have to pay for it.
I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.
you are somehow above it?
No, but that's yet another ad hom.
-
I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.
No difference, even by the arguments presented here. since its immaterial to begin with, a copy is the same thing as the original.
-
I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.
Making a copy IS taking it. That's why copyright laws exists. It exists specifically to deal with property that isn't physical. A fact you keep sidestepping.
There is no way to take an original of something that's immaterial. So taking a copy is just like stealing. So says copyright law. They don't make you pay a lower rate or something cause it's "just a copy".
No, but that's yet another ad hom.
Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.
You're running around trying to come up with any reasoning you can for stealing and it's getting sad.
The law disagrees with you. At least the other people had the sense to argue breaking the law was better. You're just arguing it isn't there.
-
Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.
I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.
-
You're arguments have been so far (with some overlap)
"I wasn't going to buy it anyways"
"All the stuff I've bought like computers are needs"
"It's not stolen, it's copying"
and finally
"The Supreme Court case that says you can't be busted for transporting intellectual property means it's ok to copy it"
None of these arguments holds any water. Not one will work as a defense in a copyright case.
If any of these defenses worked, there would be no copyright law. We would offer Freespace 2 on this very site (we don't).
People wouldn't go to Best Buy or WalMart and buy DVDs or games. One guy would buy it, upload it to the net and everyone would get it for free.
People don't do that cause they'll get in super trouble.
-
Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.
I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.
My viewpoint is "The law is the law"
What opposing viewpoint do you have to that?
-
Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.
I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.
My viewpoint is "The law is the law"
What opposing viewpoint do you have to that?
While it is true that nobody should simply accept individuals "stealing" their work--just as nobody should have to accept a company demanding that its business model works when it doesn't--big corporations, end users, and everyone in-between must learn to accept new market realities. The means with which we distribute information and communicate with one another continue to grow at a hectic pace, and taking hard-line measures against file-sharing in the interests of a small number of large corporations is a frightening possibility to comprehend, considering the ramifications for net neutrality as well as internet privacy and freedom of speech.
Law governing intellectual property is meant to compromise between the interests of individual artists and society in general. If the balance tips in either direction, the system in its entirety will collapse. Bad legal decisions on piracy may end up doing more damage than the piracy itself. The law has, thus far, done nothing to stem the tide of "illegal" downloading. The verdict against The Pirate Bay, though it has caused many smaller torrent sites to shut down, has also caused the users of those sites to simply migrate to larger trackers--most notably The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party in Sweden saw an incredible 20% surge in its membership following the verdict, and other Pirate Parties around the world continue to garner support.
Does all this not show you that a very large segment of society is demanding reform in the way we think about intellectual property?
-
While it is true that nobody should simply accept individuals "stealing" their work--just as nobody should have to accept a company demanding that its business model works when it doesn't--big corporations, end users, and everyone in-between must learn to accept new market realities. The means with which we distribute information and communicate with one another continue to grow at a hectic pace, and taking hard-line measures against file-sharing in the interests of a small number of large corporations is a frightening possibility to comprehend, considering the ramifications for net neutrality as well as internet privacy and freedom of speech.
You said quite a lot there, but really didn't say much at all.
"Stuff changes and we have to change with it" is a great line but it doesn't say much.
Are you saying people shouldn't be taken to court for copyright violations?
How does the fact that it's faster or easier somehow change the idea of who owns it?
A guy who owns the rights to a movie has the same rights to it if our fastest mode of transport is pony express or broadband.
If you want to make the argument that the internet should force these companies to offer their works online... they do. A quick glance at MGM and Warner Bros websites show me I can buy works in a digital format right now.
However, this is not the argument. The argument is that these companies should somehow just accept people downloading works.
This ignores that once they do this and downloading works for free becomes "legal", no one will buy it. Why would people buy a work when these companies say it's ok to pirate a copy for free?
The people who pirate now like to have schmoes like me buy the work (and keep the company profitable) while they don't pay. Once it becomes ok to pirate, no one will do anything else and the companies will collapse.
Law governing intellectual property is meant to compromise between the interests of individual artists and society in general.
This is why we have things like fair use and independent works.
If the balance tips in either direction, the system in its entirety will collapse. Bad legal decisions on piracy may end up doing more damage than the piracy itself. The law has, thus far, done nothing to stem the tide of "illegal" downloading. The verdict against The Pirate Bay, though it has caused many smaller torrent sites to shut down, has also caused the users of those sites to simply migrate to larger trackers--most notably The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party in Sweden saw an incredible 20% surge in its membership following the verdict, and other Pirate Parties around the world continue to garner support.
Are you arguing that by not going after people who pirate material, it'll go down? Really?
If the RIAA and such say "That's it, no more cases. We're not chasing a person again for this" that pirating will go down?
All the pirates are gonna say "Wow, how cool of them, let's delete all our works and go buy them all right now!"?
Answer: No.
Does all this not show you that a very large segment of society is demanding reform in the way we think about intellectual property?
They want it reformed because they want the work for free. They want to do what they're doing, just with no legal ramifications. Everyone wants the companies to make money but no one seems to want to be the one to pay for it.
What do you think copyright law should be? And how will companies turn profits in those conditions?
-
The people who pirate now like to have schmoes like me buy the work (and keep the company profitable) while they don't pay. Once it becomes ok to pirate, no one will do anything else and the companies will collapse.
Why must you so generally describe an entire user base without providing any evidence?
A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.
B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.
D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
Are you arguing that by not going after people who pirate material, it'll go down? Really?
If the RIAA and such say "That's it, no more cases. We're not chasing a person again for this" that pirating will go down?
I am saying that current Intellectual Property laws are too much in favor of producer/rights-holder than consumer--and pointless in being so. Downloading will continue, whether the law explicitly permits it or not. Why not amend the law so that copyright is beneficial to everyone?
They want it reformed because they want the work for free. They want to do what they're doing, just with no legal ramifications. Everyone wants the companies to make money but no one seems to want to be the one to pay for it.
Again, you are generalizing without providing any sufficient evidence to back up your claim. A large portion of file-sharers, myself included, gladly pay for original copies of what they download--and most other demographics are not as malign as you seem to believe.
What do you think copyright law should be? And how will companies turn profits in those conditions?
Given your previous (false) assertion that all pirates are malignant users who download music, games, and movies as a substitution for purchase, these questions are invalid. These companies are turning a huge profit now--profit that seems to be increasing one year after another, and unabated by the growth in the use of peer-to-peer technologies. They will continue to make greater profit in the future.
-
Why must you so generally describe an entire user base without providing any evidence?
Let's look at this argument and well point out all the parts that deal with what you quoted me on.
A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released, rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it. We might quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually have bought it if sharing didn't make it available for free. Most probably wouldn't have, but clearly there are some who would. The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead of purchasing.
This group clearly just wants work for free. Since that work needs to turn a profit to keep being made (Madonna won't work for free) people actually have to buy it (though why they would buy a Madonna CD is beyond me)
B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an artist he's not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed. If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations will actually be quite good. The net effect of this sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
Not really sure how this differs from the above group except they are ALSO in the "pay" group.
They download music and then don't buy it.
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted content that is no longer sold or that they would not have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered Napster, she spent a solid weekend "recalling" old songs. She was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.) For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the content anymore, the economic harm is zero--the same harm that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to a local collector.
"I'm poor" and "You said no, but I'm going to ignore you"
Not one work mentioned here didn't generate a profit or require someone buy it. This again is an example of someone getting a work for free that others paid for.
If he doesn't want to sell his work, you don't get to take it. (This is directly tied to the "my own personal work" example)
D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner wants to give away.
You mean works no one pays for? Works that are free should be free? Why is this even here as an example? Who's buying this?
I am saying that current Intellectual Property laws are too much in favor of producer/rights-holder than consumer--and pointless in being so.
Why? Examples please.
You want a work, they charge you for it. What part is giving you trouble?
Downloading will continue, whether the law explicitly permits it or not. Why not amend the law so that copyright is beneficial to everyone?
Amend the law to what? To say downloaded works are free? How does that benefit the owner? No one would buy a work that is free. You, like Kosh, keep tiptoeing around the real questions. What is the alternative?
Again, you are generalizing without providing any sufficient evidence to back up your claim. A large portion of file-sharers, myself included, gladly pay for original copies of what they download--and most other demographics are not as malign as you seem to believe.
This would be a more convincing case if you weren't arguing that the stuff should be free. If you'll gladly pay for it, why are you arguing you shouldn't have to?
Given your previous (false) assertion that all pirates are malignant users who download music, games, and movies as a substitution for purchase, these questions are invalid.
Short answer: "You called me names"
Long answer: "I don't have a realistic scenario in which these companies can turn a profit on free work."
As for the main part of your complaint, they ARE users who download music, games and movies as a substitution for purchase. EVERY example you listed involved someone getting a work without paying for it.
No one calls up MGM, sends them a check for 20 bucks and then downloads a movie off a torrent. You have to pay for a work when you get it. Not later... maybe.... if you like it.
These companies are turning a huge profit now--profit that seems to be increasing one year after another, and unabated by the growth in the use of peer-to-peer technologies. They will continue to make greater profit in the future.
They're turning profits because... amazingly enough, people are buying them. You, however, seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be buying them. If people don't buy them, how do they make money?
How do these companies make money if they don't sell anything?
-
I think Rick James sums it up nicely. Sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies really aren't helping BL's arguement.
-
I think Rick James sums it up nicely. Sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies really aren't helping BL's arguement.
You'd prefer I argue the fact that copyright law is still in fact copyright law by arguing the personal reasonings behind every single person using the internet? It's not my fault you misunderstand the very basis of law. "But this guy does it for this reason" doesn't suddenly make copyright law go away.
Why not just admit that this is not a glorious market changing movement and is just people being greedy? Instead of arguing that these people aren't greedy, you say I'm calling them names so you don't have to. This is a nice (and obvious) way of getting around that they ARE greedy, you just don't care that they are.
Wanting something for free even though it's both against the law and against the wishes of the owner and then arguing you have a greater right to the work. What does that sound like?
You argue against sweeping generalizations but then argue the companies are bad. Are they all bad? Which ones aren't? Which companies do we pirate from because they're bad and which do we not because they're good? No one ever seems to make that distinction. Is it ok to take from artists without paying if they're just bad? Or do they have to be run poorly too? Do you not pay for people's work even if they operate correctly in this new internet thingy? What's the rules on this?
You can't come up with a scenario that works for these companies as a model. This is mostly because there is no real plan besides "give it to use for free" You guys just add in the reasons for whichever fits best at the moment.
You can't come up with logical reasons why copyright law should change. There are some, you're just failing at it. Faster internet doesn't make copyright different somehow. It just makes it harder to enforce. "They can't stop us" is just wrong. They will, you just may not like the way they do it.
You're arguing two things... poorly.
You're arguing these works should be free. You're giving no reasoning, no proof. Everyone is quick to jump on these companies as bad, and ruining the work. But no one really wants to say why and how?
You're arguing you're helping these companies turn massive profits. If they were really beating these things into the ground, wouldn't they be not profitable?
You're telling me these companies are masterminds that have huge profits, then tell me they shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand because they're so terrible at it in a changing society.
Also the fact that none of you have offered any real specific changes to copyright law tells me one thing: you don't have one or have one that is so ridiculous you can't even say it here because you know it'll get laughed at immediately.
But please, keep running away cause I called you mean names like "thief".The fingers in the ears "LALALA I'm not stealing" is really paying off for you guys.
-
run adds in streaming videos/music.
there, profit made.
-
run adds in streaming videos/music.
there, profit made.
Streaming music is a great way to do this. Places like myspace and such already have streaming music. If you could keep people from copying it, it would work great.
Not just music either, movies and TV shows.
Places like Hulu and such already do this. As long as you don't have a copy of it, this is all perfectly legal and profitable.
-
This is all about cultural diffrences. The current world is racist against the Internet people :mad:.
-
This is all about cultural diffrences. The current world is racist against the Internet people :mad:.
You're kidding, right? :wtf:
-
As a matter of fact, no. In here in Internet, from the creation of WWW in 1993, we have come and set our own rules and such to this very day. The fact that the Internet was not watched over in the beginning, makes it an ideal way to simulate paradise world, as we have. We have created our very own culture composed of trash like Lolcats, Pedobear, Rick Roll. Jokes, material and art only understandable within the environment of the Internet. Now the world governments are trying to suppress our way of live with Internet monitoring and other Internet censoring laws. While they try to create laws that will affect our way of having fun, they are mostly not affected by the civil rights of the people of the Internet, for example the British law to save all the emails up to an year.
The only worry is that if the world entities such as USA or EU go too far in usurping the rights of the Internet people, Internet might fought back. Already we have seen it in the form of Anonymous DDOS attacking sites. The Internet people is not that far off concept. Pirate Parties are basically people that used to communicate and socialize in Internet, only to find that governments try to limit what they can do.
-
Errr.....No. Technically, we do not have any rights on the Internet. All we have is a tradition of unhindered communication between people on the Internet. While the current need of politicians around the globe to hinder the free speech we have enjoyed so far is worrying, it is not "racism".
-
As a matter of fact, no. In here in Internet, from the creation of WWW in 1993, we have come and set our own rules and such to this very day. The fact that the Internet was not watched over in the beginning, makes it an ideal way to simulate paradise world, as we have. We have created our very own culture composed of trash like Lolcats, Pedobear, Rick Roll. Jokes, material and art only understandable within the environment of the Internet. Now the world governments are trying to suppress our way of live with Internet monitoring and other Internet censoring laws. While they try to create laws that will affect our way of having fun, they are mostly not affected by the civil rights of the people of the Internet, for example the British law to save all the emails up to an year.
The only worry is that if the world entities such as USA or EU go too far in usurping the rights of the Internet people, Internet might fought back. Already we have seen it in the form of Anonymous DDOS attacking sites. The Internet people is not that far off concept. Pirate Parties are basically people that used to communicate and socialize in Internet, only to find that governments try to limit what they can do.
Wow that was a big long "There are no rules on the internet" which ignores things like user agreements, disclaimers, laws and other things that kinda... you know... shoot a hole in that.
"We watched ourselves" No you didn't. The laws and regulations on the companies that owned the sites and the servers watched you. They have had rules forever.
If you sign up for a site or sign up for hosting, there is a long list of stuff you have to read and agree to. They don't do that cause it's fun.
This is hilarious. You guys fight back against the US government and then they charge you with terrorism.
-
I'm not saying that there are no rules in the Internet, I'm just saying that our concept of laws are just diffrent. As we have socialized in a world with no need for concept such as politics, that is neither without concept of real space. Before the real world did try to gain more power within this ultimate tool of democracy (such is the Internet called these days, as you were free to say all you wanted) the Internet was not infact considered a whole entity, as we were required not to. You call me Hilarius, read Telecom, that's more Hilarius.
I'm not saying that the Internet is a world filled with anarchy, nor control. I'm saying that Internet is beyond such concept, Internet is global and yet we believe that it's global regulation (trough copyright) is bad.
-
Kind of interesting ongoing story here, Pirate Bay are now claiming for a retrial because it appears the Judge is a member of 2 seperate Copyright representative boards, and that it is just as easy to search on Google as Pirate Bay.
First argument holds some water, the second doesn't, there's a difference between a search engine and a torrent-tracker.
-
But a Torrent tracker without a search engine to point you towards the .torrent files is pretty useless. IIRC, the trial wasn't only about the tracker, but also about the repository of .torrent files the Pirate Bay kept searchable online.
-
Well, the argument is that, because PB can tell the user how many people are sharing the file etc, it's assisting in Piracy, not sure whether that's going to hold water, but personally, I think the Judges links with Copyright organisations are the most interesting, the Google thing is arguing points of law, but the simple fact that the Judge may have been facing a conflict of interest and didn't even bring up the possibility of it until after the trial is very interesting.
Not sure what the legal status of something like that is where they are being tried, but I'd say that stands more chance of succeeding as an appeal.
Edit: At the end of the day, they will most likely be found guilty, strictly speaking they are guilty, if people want to pirate that's one thing, but to pretend it is anything other than what it is, is silly. The only time I consider downloading a game to be 'legal' is when you already own the game you are downloading.
Yes, there's a lot that Media companies could do, Steam proved that dropping prices increased sales more than proportionally with Video Games, and even went so far as to say that if the prices were half what they are now, game companies would probably make more profit from their games, not less, so greed has got the better of both sides, but the problem isn't going to stop until both sides address it.
-
I'm not saying that there are no rules in the Internet, I'm just saying that our concept of laws are just diffrent.
That's great. You don't get to enforce them. Governments do!
When you use the internet you sign tons of contracts, and if you break them, they can take you to court!
As we have socialized in a world with no need for concept such as politics, that is neither without concept of real space. Before the real world did try to gain more power within this ultimate tool of democracy (such is the Internet called these days, as you were free to say all you wanted) the Internet was not infact considered a whole entity, as we were required not to. You call me Hilarius, read Telecom, that's more Hilarius.
Wait, you don't need politics but you are a tool of democracy?
I do stand by my previous statement of "hilarious".
I'm not saying that the Internet is a world filled with anarchy, nor control. I'm saying that Internet is beyond such concept, Internet is global and yet we believe that it's global regulation (trough copyright) is bad.
And you would be wrong. Because you think that somehow these companies operate in some alternate reality. The people on the internet lives in countries, those countries have laws. You are bound to follow those laws.
If this is the best argument you can come up with, I weep for any sort of effective resistance to government oversight.
-
But a Torrent tracker without a search engine to point you towards the .torrent files is pretty useless. IIRC, the trial wasn't only about the tracker, but also about the repository of .torrent files the Pirate Bay kept searchable online.
The concept of a torrent isn't wrong. In fact, it's a great idea. The problem is those torrents are almost always copyrighted material and places like TPB actively encourage people to traffic in them.
-
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/27/google-guilty-pirate-bay
I agree with the comment posted at the bottom of the news post.