[Blue Lion]

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?

[Blue Lion]

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?

[TrashMan]

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.

[Rick James]

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 say that peer-to-peer activity does not hurt sales, while others say file-sharing is, in point of fact, beneficial.

[Blue Lion]

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. 

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 say that peer-to-peer activity does not hurt sales, while others say file-sharing is, in point of fact, beneficial.

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.

[Uchuujinsan]

@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.

[iamzack]

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.

[BloodEagle]

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]

@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. 

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.

[Blue Lion]

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?

[Uchuujinsan]

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. 

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?

[DarkBasilisk]

Studies: Library, you've not only got computers but these things called books there.

And then there's your classes, and textbooks.

[iamzack]

Mostly marketing. Ads, endorsements, etc.

[BloodEagle]

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.

[Uchuujinsan]

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.

[Rick James]

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.

[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?

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?

[Rick James]

Let's not get such inconvenient facts get in the way, shall we?

I call it the "Guantanamo Bay" approach to debate.

[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.

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.

[Kosh]

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.