[Blue Lion]

I was all alone on this side dammit! 

[Kosh]

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.

[DarkBasilisk]

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.

[Rick James]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Dark RevenantX]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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?

[Blue Lion]

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?

[Rick James]

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 a few producers and publishers 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, at least in the area of music, and some content producers, like Paulo Coelho, 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.

[Blue Lion]

Quite a few producers and publishers 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? 

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, at least in the area of music, and some content producers, like Paulo Coelho, 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.

[Inquisitor]

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.

[ssmit132]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Kosh]

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?

[Blue Lion]

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.

[Rick James]

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:

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."

[TrashMan]

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)