Just seen a locked thread, with someone bragging about downloading Codecies.

And it got me thinking, why do people do it? Cards on the table, I am very anti-piracy. I have nothing in my posession that I have not bought and paid for through proper channels. Every DVD, every VHS, every book, every game. All of it bought and paid for.

I believe in paying people for their work. If I fancy a film, I'll either go see it in the cinema, rent it from Blockbusters, or if I really fancy it, just go buy the DVD. Same with music. End of the day, someones job depends on the money coming in from these purchases, and I intend to see them rewarded in the conventional way for my enjoyment.

Yet you always hear about piracy, file sharing etc. I really can't think of anything more selfish than what is essentially stealing. After all, what makes the person doing the downloading so special, they feel they don't have to pay. One argument for it I often hear is 'well, if I like it I'll go out and buy it'. To me, that's not good enough. There are ways to see things without necessarily paying. Borrowing off friends, waiting to see it on telly etc. Hell, if you're patient the second hand market is always there, and the longer you wait typically the cheaper it gets. Whilst these aren't necessarily completely legal (second hand market on certain goods can be a distinct grey area) the creators, distributors etc have still had their slice of the pie, and it's unlikely there are suddenly additional copies in circulation.

So, why do people use software, movie and music piracy? What is the justification?

Well when your paying say £10 for a cd just to upload the tracks to your computer, or a similar cost on Itunes, when you can just donwload them for free elsewhere, and you find that well, just a few tracks don't really cut it, you do wonder why you are still paying for music when everyone else is just getting it all illegally. =/

Not really much of a defence. If you don't pay, and that becomes justifcation for someone else to do so...vicious circle.

That's the price. Don't like it, don't buy it. Don't buy it, don't pinch it, surely?

Music: I have downloaded a handful of albums.

I bought them on vinyl
Then bought them on tape

if you think I am gonna buy them again on CD or MP3... tough

Some people refuse to pay 20$ for an 8 track cd where two of the songs are filler crappy remixs or have 15 other stars on the track. They don't make singles anymore so you just can't buy the song you like. That's why music is downloaded so much. Some people can't afford books for armies they will never play but need to know the rules for. Some people are just poor and angry that the prices of a codex has jumped 100% movie tickets went from 5 bucks to 12. Music went from 8 bucks a cd to 18+. Some people feel that they get ripped off enough by big biz. Non of it is legal. You sound like you are on kind of a high horse. Times are bad, really bad. To the point where black and white can become shades of grey.

I dowload movies and music, if i like it I buy it, it's kind of like a preview function

I don't pirate things because there's so many options for simply downloading it legally these days. But I can see why one would-- it's too expensive being the biggest incentive. It's not for me.

One question actually- are there sites other than itunes to download music from legally? I hate shopping for CDs, and I hate apple, so I'm in a slight quandry with regard to replacing my large music collection that I lost moving house.

You're asking for reasons yet quickly knock them down. Not much of a discussion is it? It's easy to sit on a high horse but at least listen to people when you ask for reasons.

Don't like the price, don't buy it

doesn't cut it when you're asking for a discussion.

People dowload because of many, many factors.

Cost is a massive factor. Double the cost of a blockbuster DVD for a crappy Space Marine movie lead to hundreds appearing for download within two weeks.

Because you can. No other reason.

Because of the fact that you've just spent up and can't afford the new DVD.

Then there's the serial downloader. Giving the bird to the system, knowing in their hippy way that the law can't touch them or will never find them.

There are those who miss episode 3 of the latest series and must download before next weeks episode airs.

Then there are those who still feel genuinely sick that they work 40+ hours a week and cannot afford the latest album/DVD/computer game. They know that the artist is already earning from that single release more than what he can earn in ten years. So they download.

Then there are the people who believe that all information is free to share. Some argue that it doesn't exist in reality so they justify the time on Vuze in that manner.

So it's a misplaced sense of entitlement, is what you're saying?

I can't afford it, so I'll steal it?

I really am amazed this has become even vaguely acceptable.

And then theres the fact that downloading is the fastest way of getting most things.

IMO the music industry as we currently know it will collapse in the next 10 years.

Recorded music will effectively become free, and musicians will make the bulk of their money through live performance, which by definition can't be pirated.

There will simply be much less money in the whole business for everyone involved.

Mr Mystery wrote:So it's a misplaced sense of entitlement, is what you're saying?

I can't afford it, so I'll steal it?

I really am amazed this has become even vaguely acceptable.

You ask for reasons, these are some that I know of, have come across myself in other forums and speaking to friends. The reasons are such; means to make the downloading acceptable in their eyes.

I very much doubt that the music industry will collapse. If anything it is getting bigger and bigger with dreams from even more people of making it big due to X-Faxtor etc. The industry is looking at even more ways of stopping downloads and, if anything, are handling DRM and other methods such as via I-Tunes better each time. It will never go away but the music industry is definately here to stay.

Mr M: It's not that suprising. Piracy has no visible victim- if people think about musicians at all, they probably think of rich and famous people partying all day and night. Stealing harms the person you steal from directly- you nick someone's car, they haven't got one anymore! Create a copy of their car without ever being near them? Seems like a much less serious crime. I agree, it's still bad, but it's not AS bad as stealing for that reason. People have a tendancy to not think about things too deeply.
Not to point fingers or anything, but given your tone, you are a frequent user of dakka, but not a DCM. Do you see donations as seperate to "prices"? They fullfil the same function, Yakface and Lego are just a lot nicer about it

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the music industry as we currently know it will collapse in the next 10 years.

Recorded music will effectively become free, and musicians will make the bulk of their money through live performance, which by definition can't be pirated.

There will simply be much less money in the whole business for everyone involved.

That's a good thing in my eyes.

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the music industry as we currently know it will collapse in the next 10 years.

Recorded music will effectively become free, and musicians will make the bulk of their money through live performance, which by definition can't be pirated.

There will simply be much less money in the whole business for everyone involved.

Actually I think there will still be plenty of legal downloading, which will replace CD sales and in the end earn more money than CDs would because it's easier to put a song up for download than it is to have CDs manufactured, shipped, and sold.

But I do believe the RIAA is already falling, it's losing its importance year by year.

Most musicians already do make most of their money through live performances, it's really only the big acts who make the bulk of their money through record sales. In fact it's been the same way since the rise of music videos, when the cost of promoting a record became something only viable for those signed to the major record labels.

I can't vouch for the "Me Too!" generation, but most of the arguments I have in favor of piracy stem from philosophical origin. The labels screw bands out of the majority of the money they deserve. Courtney Love had a surprisingly intelligent piece (with numbers!) on just how little bands make from the record labels and some of their sleazy tactics. The prior manager from Pink Floyd had another pretty good evaluation of them, and he WAS part of the system.

Personally, if I hear music I like, I look it up on riaaradar.com. If they're not big-label, I buy their music, if they are, I'd consider alternate means of getting it (no actual admission of guilt) or I simply go without, depending on the effort I wish to make. I refuse to participate in fueling the evil.

As for codices its so that I can plan armies. It works in GW's favour, If I buy the army I'll buy the dex. If not well I wouldn't have needed it anyway.

I have deathwatch on PDF as it's a tome to lug around and how else am I supposed to make crib sheets other than scan or photocopy my book?

I used to download to get a lot of American shows. I'm not paying for Sky and their appalling attitude and endless advert breaks and adverts plastered across the middle of programmes making things unwatchable. When there's a good show on terrestrial they wade in with the cash and make sure they get the remaining seasons. This is what they did with LOST, and then had the cheek to rub people's faces in it by putting out adverts effectively saying "buy Sky to see the next season".

Well feth them.

But once they became available through things like iTunes I was happy to pay for the convenience, quality and of course lack of adverts.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I used to download to get a lot of American shows. I'm not paying for Sky and their appalling attitude and endless advert breaks and adverts plastered across the middle of programmes making things unwatchable.

But they're just trying to capture the modern American television experience!

Da Boss wrote:Not to point fingers or anything, but given your tone, you are a frequent user of dakka, but not a DCM. Do you see donations as seperate to "prices"? They fullfil the same function, Yakface and Lego are just a lot nicer about it

I'm a frequent user of dakka and a DCM. I use iTunes for my music, and I buy my codex from GW.

I do it just to hurt Mr Mystery's feelings. Otherwise I would never download anything. Every time you download a song a part of his soul withers away but a fairy gets its wings.

Soladrin wrote:And then theres the fact that downloading is the fastest way of getting most things.

People pirate because it's fast, it's free, and it's anonymous. You can take whatever you want and don't even have to figure out how to dodge the sensor at the exit, or random security guards.

They don't make singles anymore so you just can't buy the song you like.

That is misleading as all heck. I can buy individual songs digitally on itunes or on amazon.com, so in effect I can buy just the songs off an album that I like.

Then again, I am old fashioned and think stealing is stealing, be it digits/bits, ideas or physical objects. Heck, when recently selling a motorcycle I wanted to use digital pictures of it that I had copies of but did noit take. I went out of my way to ask the guy who took/owned the pictures if I could use them (he was the one that had sent me the pictures when I got the bike). Without his permission I would neverhave used those images.

Jake

Da Boss wrote:Not to point fingers or anything, but given your tone, you are a frequent user of dakka, but not a DCM. Do you see donations as seperate to "prices"? They fullfil the same function, Yakface and Lego are just a lot nicer about it

That's not a fair comparison. This site gets around 8k logins a day by the looks of things. Do you really think your DCM "prices" cover the cost of running a website with that much traffic? No it's the ppi advertising in the top right corner of your screen which is paying for that. By donating you are doing just that, donating. There are some 'public service' type websites out there that do rely on donations sure, but I'll eat my hat if this is one of them.

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the music industry as we currently know it will collapse in the next 10 years.

Recorded music will effectively become free, and musicians will make the bulk of their money through live performance, which by definition can't be pirated.

There will simply be much less money in the whole business for everyone involved.

That would MUCH better IMO. The best rock music made was before the 80s, when a band became famous because they busted their asses on stage, and played on tv as much as possible. A band back then became rich because they were good. I think bands like Pink Floyd, The Allman Brothers Band, Black Sabbath and such totally deserve the money they have, they worked for it. Modern music gets cycled so much on gak stations and on the internet that you basically HAVE to like it and then they make an unbelievable heap of cash and for what? Most those groups today dont have talent, and Ive seen many live shows from modern bands, and they SUCK on stage. Likewise Ive seen alot of classic rock bands, and even though they are pushing 60s or older, those guys still are kicking ass on stage, why? Because they still have to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Not to point fingers or anything, but given your tone, you are a frequent user of dakka, but not a DCM. Do you see donations as seperate to "prices"? They fullfil the same function, Yakface and Lego are just a lot nicer about it

That's not a fair comparison. This site gets around 8k logins a day by the looks of things. Do you really think your DCM "prices" cover the cost of running a website with that much traffic? No it's the ppi advertising in the top right corner of your screen which is paying for that. By donating you are doing just that, donating. There are some 'public service' type websites out there that do rely on donations sure, but I'll eat my hat if this is one of them.

Yea whoa, seriously DaBoss your way out of line for saying that. Nice way to insult anyone that hasnt paid for a DCM tag

Because a Pirates Life for me, YAAAARGH! (Pirates > Vikings > Ninja's, btw)

As for the actual topic, I have never downloaded anything without paying for it (other than Albatrosses Album, but he was giving that for free anyway). If I like a song, but don't like the band/singer, what have you, I just look up a video on Google/Youtube and listen to it on my computer. As for buying CD's, I will only do that for those that I love and want to listen on the road and such.

Google Songs include: Katy Perry's E.T., SoaD's Chop Suey, and various other songs

Purchased Song's Include: Crazy Train/Babies by Ozzy, Feel the Noize by Quiet Riot, and some others.

I'm a reformed pirate. I don't play video games at all, but I used to download software for other things (notably Photoshop), I've since discovered the Open Source movement and get most of my software through there.

As to music, I will admit that I've ripped most of my CDs to mp3's, but there's very little music I'm interested in purchasing anymore. If I did, I'd likely use iTunes or some alternative (probably the latter, as iTunes lock me into apple, which I find troublesome) also, most of the time if there's a track I want to hear, I can either YouTube it or it'll eventually end up in one of my Pandora stations.

I don't pirate movies, as RedBox has basically removed the need for it. I'm mildly tempted to lapse with the Ultramarines movie, just because $40 exceeds my movie budget, and I don't want a collectors edition (though I do kinda want the comic). Therefore, I haven't seen it. and am waiting for a regular edition.

I do have pdfs of many GW rulebooks, but I own the physical books as well. It's just convenient to have all the dexes on one Cd if I want to work up a list, or check something for the YMDC forum.

Mr Mystery wrote:So, why do people use software, movie and music piracy? What is the justification?

If it's something I would buy, I will buy it.

So if one of my favourite bands releases and album, I'll buy it on CD. If I really want to see a movie I'll go and see at the movies. Or I'll rent it on DVD.

But there's a whole lot of stuff that isn't worth the price of admission, that I'd watch for free, but would never go out to spend money on. It might be that they're a band who had a decent single, but not so good I'd take a punt on whether the album is any good or not. Or it might be a movie that looked like it might be okay, that I'd never end up spending money to see. I've got a choice there, to either not download it, and therefore not watch it, or to download it and watch it.

And that's the thing. I agree that people deserve to be remunerated for their art, if a crowd wants to see it. So when I want to see something I will pay to see it... but what if I'm not sure if I want to see it, and don't think it's worth money to find out? The answer from the 'don't download' crowd appears to be that I should simply not see it, and that's the end of that. But to the artist, what's the difference between me not seeing a thing, and me downloading it and seeing it, then possibly buying it if it's actually any good?

The difference is that the artist might actually get some money after the download.

A classic example is downloading codices. I will always buy the codex for my army. But what about all the codices of other armies, I'm not going to buy every single one at $40 a pop, but it's good to be knowledgeable about other armies. So I can annoy my opponents before each game and ask to borrow their codex to refresh my memory, or I can download them to review beforehand. In at least one case it's led to me buying the codex and then the whole army, as I downloaded the Ork codex in anticipation of a game and realised 'damn these guys look like fun'. One army later and it's about $1,000 GW wouldn't have seen otherwise...

I definitely lean toward the information is free crowd. Buying a song so the recording industry can continue to lurch along manufacturing bands and suing people isn't noble to me. If you want to, fine with me, but passing some sort of judgment on others for disagreeing with you is crap.

Copying something isn't stealing to me. It's the opinion of many large organizations, notably the movie and music industries that it is, but that doesn't make it fact. If someone isn't going to pay for a movie, song, program or book, then the people making it aren't going to get that money any way. You aren't denying the use of whatever it is to anyone else.

Because I can. Now what the hell are you going to do about it?

That's right, nothing.

VermGho5t wrote:Because I can. Now what the hell are you going to do about it?

That's right, nothing.

I like yer moxy, kid

VermGho5t wrote:Because I can. Now what the hell are you going to do about it?

That's right, nothing.

You can walk into a store and steal something too. Does that make it right? Or maybe you already do.

snurl wrote:

VermGho5t wrote:Because I can. Now what the hell are you going to do about it?

That's right, nothing.

You can walk into a store and steal something too. Does that make it right? Or maybe you already do.

Yeah, but you are more likely to get caught that way, so no. Less likely to get caught = more morally sound.

I download all my songs from iTunes, and I watch what I want to watch on Netflix (which I pay for) or Hulu.

I have, on occasion, "pirated" a Codex pdf. However, I don;t view it as an act of stealing, sincerely and honestly. I live about a 30 minute drive from the local GW, where all of the codices I could want are on display for me to pick up and read through at my leisure. All the information I need is already free. So, by saving myself a 30 minute drive, who suffers? Am I "robbing" the gas company by not using fuel? I suppose you could argue that. But I'm certainly not taking anything from GW that they don;t already offer me for free. Hell, in the case of my Space Wolves army, I downloaded the PDF, bought over $1000 in models, and also ended up buying the codex. I don;t see what the problem is.

I suppose the other thing I don;t consider piracy is downloading things that a company no longer sells. Call it self entitlement if you wish, but I don't feel like it hurts anyone by acquiring a product that a company no longer wishes to sell. If I don't have the option to give them money for the product, then getting it for free isn't stealing.

I get all my music from 'those' sites. I use them because of the cost.

But if there is a band, that i 'pirated' and like. I will go and buy their cd. To help that band.

For example: i have never heared of paramore before. But now i own every cd they have.

I don't think its as cut and dried as that, I happily bought the UM movie and it sucked, but lots of "meh" stuff you definitely wouldn't buy, but will listen to for free.

Hence I think piracy figures are misleading.

In the early days I did downloaded music for free, mainly stuff that I'd bought before on vinyl. As it's become easier to get and the price has dropped I very rarely download pirate music. Films, shows and software I still do. Films, if they are any good I buy them as I like having a proper version with the extras. TV shows... I hate Sky and refuse to pay them anything, however if I like the show I will buy it. Software? Well that's more complex, I just have a magpie approach, it's nice and shiney so I want it. Plus demo software doesn't give you any time to really learn it.

I would really like to see some true figures that reflect the actual real loses the film industry suffer from due to piracy. How much of those downloads equate to actual lost sales? If they were able to stop it once and for all, would their profits go up much? How many of those downloads are by people who just want to see the film first, but still go to the cinema when it comes out or are people who wouldn't go to see it anyway if you removed the download option.

KingCracker and whatwhat: I know it's different, this wasn't intended as a dig at non-DCMs in any way. I was making a point (specifically to Mr Mystery) that with his supercillious, high handed attitude, it seems a double standard on his part. I see the difference between donation and price (and mentioned it in my post), I am trying to encourage Mr M to engage in a bit of reflection as to why his opinion is a bit OTT, rather than blanket criticise all non-DCMs. I only recently started earning enough to feel I could comfortably contribute, and there are many sites that I still wouldn't donate to. I don't criticise anyone for not donating, I think it's absolutely fine. I hope that's clear now- the post was an attempt to make Mr M reconsider his high handed attitude and dismissive language and actually engage with the topic, which is not as cut and dried as he assumes.

Fair enough?

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO the music industry as we currently know it will collapse in the next 10 years.

Recorded music will effectively become free, and musicians will make the bulk of their money through live performance, which by definition can't be pirated.

There will simply be much less money in the whole business for everyone involved.

In the last decade concert ticket revenue tripled - the industry is actually in rude health. All that's happening is that the areas in which the industry traditionally makes its money are changing. I think they'll be fine.

@Mr. Mystery - Have you ever streamed a video on youtube?

In response to that video: yes I would, yes I would, yes I would, yes I would. Do they seriously believe everyone is that innocent? Maybe it's just me but I think most people evaluate the repercusions of theft against the rewards when they decide not to steal, rather than doing so on the simple basis that theft is immoral. The morality part of it is usually who you're stealing from, not that you're stealing. For example if your bank gives you back a twenty pound note instead of a ten are you going to speak up? If it was a terminally ill child on the other hand?

whatwhat wrote:If it was a terminally ill child on the other hand?

How terminal are we talking here? Like 2 days to go, or a year? This is important.

Why do I get the feeling whatwhat has pirated more than anyone on this board and is just having a spot of fun with us?

See now you've brought up a better question than the original "why piracy?"

How terminally ill does a child need to be before you wont steal from them?

That's a much more realistic question on morality. Everybody steals for feth's sake.

I try never to illegally download films or tv shows, i stream tv shows all the time on megavideo admittedly, but i dont download each and every episode and keep 'em on my hard drive anymore. I LOVE going to the cinema, even by myself but i dont buy dvds. I try to buy albums by new small label artists who do it more to write great music and make a living rather than fame. If i like 1 song off the radio i will probably just find it on free rapidshare, and listen to it a couple times and then delete it. For games workshop i have read most of the current codexes but havent bought one since 2004, now that i have pretty much memorised the DE one i see little point in buying it now, though i am much more likely to now as before i was merely reading the codexes because i liked the 40k universe but hadn't played in years.

This thread has stolen 5 minutes of my life that I will not get back; I demand compensation!

Srsly, I have a few things that I downloaded, but that was because they were either so legacy that they were unavailable otherwise (trying to find some older albums for reasonable prices or even at all can be hard), or were just plain unavailable in my country; or they were downloaded with the intention of buying if they were good.

The majority of stuff I have bought afterwards (again, where available), with the only exception being an album or two that I can't track down (I will look for it; I will not shell out £40 for it to a shifty third-party seller). I do, however, have a "Song of the post" theme on my blog, where I have a song at the end of each entry that I heard that day and liked or just fits with the theme. I link it to youtube and where applicable, a site to purchase it, and actively encourage people to listen and buy.

If I can't track down albums, then maybe others can. I'm not saying it makes what i've done alright, but surely getting 2 people to buy 1 album that I couldn't buy is better than having nobody buying it at all.

Its pretty much the easiest form of theft, if it wasn't available i wouldn't do it, hell i'd even get some painting done! Or i'd read some more books.

Oh and I bet we all watch free porn! I don't see anyone crying over them!

Mr Mystery wrote:Yet you always hear about piracy, file sharing etc. I really can't think of anything more selfish than what is essentially stealing. After all, what makes the person doing the downloading so special, they feel they don't have to pay. One argument for it I often hear is 'well, if I like it I'll go out and buy it'. To me, that's not good enough. There are ways to see things without necessarily paying. Borrowing off friends, waiting to see it on telly etc. Hell, if you're patient the second hand market is always there, and the longer you wait typically the cheaper it gets. Whilst these aren't necessarily completely legal (second hand market on certain goods can be a distinct grey area) the creators, distributors etc have still had their slice of the pie, and it's unlikely there are suddenly additional copies in circulation.

I borrow a cd from a friend: creator receives no revenue

I pirate a cd: creator receives no revenue.

I buy a cd: unless creator is their own publisher, or is already hugely popular (and even then, it's iffy), creator receives no revenue.


...why exactly is option 3 better than the other two?

Further, why is option one okay but not option two? The end result is exactly the same.

My views on music piracy?

Ahtman wrote:

Yeah, but you are more likely to get caught that way, so no. Less likely to get caught = more morally sound.

More interesting to me is just WHAT makes this such a widespread and largely public opinion? I mean, certainly for piracy (and the above theory) to be something so many people believe and act on, it can't just be some random abberent or sociopathic behaviour, and it's gotta be learned or developed somewhere. Unelss you're falling into the generic "youth is corrupt" trap, that is. I don't think people are getting it from any sort of pop culture element. Since our culture is dictated by corporations marketing to us at this point, that would be deliciously ironic anyway.

Well, according to one user on Kotaku, I'm pretentious for being against piracy.

Why am I against piracy?

One, I work for Network Rail, and we always get Gypsy's stealing equipment, cable and whatnot. And it severely hampers our effectiveness. I get annoyed with it, because it means it makes my life more difficult at work.

Two, does ANYONE like the DRM Ubisoft put out in order curb piracy? I think not.

rubiksnoob wrote:My views on music piracy?

You mean Pirate Music, right?

daedalus wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I used to download to get a lot of American shows. I'm not paying for Sky and their appalling attitude and endless advert breaks and adverts plastered across the middle of programmes making things unwatchable.

But they're just trying to capture the modern American television experience!

No kidding.

feth modern television. Hell, I was perfectly willing to put up with one or two commercials on Hulu just to get away from modern television (a pity they didn't actually have the CSI and NCIS videos on Hulu, CBS apparently not wanting any revenue from internet viewers).

Wolfun wrote:One, I work for Network Rail

Is that an internet company or do you work on Trains? Feels like it could go either way with that name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I used to download to get a lot of American shows. I'm not paying for Sky and their appalling attitude and endless advert breaks and adverts plastered across the middle of programmes making things unwatchable.

But they're just trying to capture the modern American television experience!

No kidding.

feth modern television. Hell, I was perfectly willing to put up with one or two commercials on Hulu just to get away from modern television (a pity they didn't actually have the CSI and NCIS videos on Hulu, CBS apparently not wanting any revenue from internet viewers).

That is becuase they made a deal with Netflix. Most companies are also not big fans of relying on their direct competitors for media dissemination and Hulu is NBC owned.

Then some other company would be nice. I'm not gonna pay to watch TV, haven't paid to watch cable yet either (which leaves me in the dark when people start talking about cable television, but meh, feth pop culture).

No one is forced to pay for TV. Basic and Premium cable channels are not mandatory to survive. You can still watch NCIS for free.

Ahtman wrote:No one is forced to pay for TV.

Maybe not in your country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

Ahtman wrote:No one is forced to pay for TV. Basic and Premium cable channels are not mandatory to survive. You can still watch NCIS for free.

Only if I am available when NCIS is showing.

If the company was intelligent and allowed me to watch online (Hell, even if it's on their own site), I'd be able to watch whenever I wanted.

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:No one is forced to pay for TV.

Maybe not in your country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

As an American that was talking to another American about the TV situation in America, I don't really care what other countries charge their citizens and what those citizens allow themselves to be charged.

That being said, even TV is not necessary to a full and productive life so if you don't want to pay to watch any form of television than simply don't. Use a TV for watching DVD's or playing games. If you don't even want a TV get a library card.

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:No one is forced to pay for TV.

Maybe not in your country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

As an American that was talking to another American about the TV situation in America, I don't really care what other countries charge their citizens and what those citizens allow themselves to be charged.

Ouch. You know you are technically paying for your tv without a tv licence. In the UK we have chanles with no advertising because of the license, whereas in the US you get advertising. And unless anything has changed since the last time I was there, you get a gak load of it too.

Ahtman wrote:No one is forced to pay for TV. Basic and Premium cable channels are not mandatory to survive. You can still watch NCIS for free.

That's because you're not a consumer; you're a product. The market for TV is... dundundun: advertisers.

The CSIs and NCIs are the only TV shows that I actually enjoy at this point. Unfortunately, even when I do get free time at the right time, half the time the digital signal is messed up anyway so I get breaks and pauses in the scene like it was a scratched DVD.

Have you also tried House (early 2nd-3rd season house), and some of the comedy shows out there?

whatwhat wrote:

Wolfun wrote:Well, according to one user on Kotaku, I'm pretentious for being against piracy.

Why am I against piracy?

One, I work for Network Rail, and we always get Gypsy's stealing equipment, cable and whatnot. And it severely hampers our effectiveness. I get annoyed with it, because it means it makes my life more difficult at work.

Piracy is not theft. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a different sort of wrong. The music industry in particular is desperate to make out that piracy is "theft". It's not theft because you deprive the original owner of nothing; in theory you take away a potential sale and deprive the artist of their cut - though there's nothing to say that a person who downloaded something for free would have equally as likely have paid for it. When you're paying for something most people are a lot more picky then if they can get a load of stuff for free.

No, piracy is "copyright infringement" not "theft", they are legally quite different things but the music and film industries try their utmost to conflate the two because it suits their agenda to affect public opinion and that of governments. They want people to think it's a criminal act like stealing from a shop when it isn't. Copyright enforcement is the job of the copyright holder, effectively making it a civil problem not a criminal one.

Media companies try very hard to equate filesharing with shoplifting. They are different things, piracy is not 'theft', not in the way it is portrayed by adverts like the above. It's not right either but that's not the point being made here.

Media companies try to apply pressure to governments to make it a criminal offence. But it's not theft, to "file share" is to "breach copyright", it's largely a civil matter, it's not the job of governments to police copyright on the behalf of big companies. Companies protect their own copyright. But the big media companies have tried to turn it into a criminal offence. Furthermore they have tried to create a "presumed guilty before innocent" approach to tackling transgressors. They send letters to people with arbitrary fines on them and try to extort money from people, correctly identified or not, with intimidating threats of huge legal action. And there's all the other powers that they want. For instance, various schemes include wanting governments to force ISPs to hand over personal data on the basis of an accusation. Or worse still, insist that your internet connection be cut off, or that they can confiscate your personal computer to look to see if you have downloaded material. Right, so what they would like is that a private company can expect to ask another private company to hand over the confidential details of their own customers, merely on the basis of an accusation. This in my mind is a bit worrying.

I'm curious how many people here who create ip also follow the argument
that free information is promotional rather than unethical.

It's different looking at it from our end. We're just consumers.

Actually yes, I plan on watching House on Hulu after I finish the series I'm currently watching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, no, nevermind. Hulu only has season seven. Not interested in starting a series from the middle.

Try here http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/internet/house/

There is no honor amongst thieves.

To each their own.

malfred wrote:I'm curious how many people here who create ip also follow the argument
that free information is promotional rather than unethical.

Well, my band Dresden(http://www.dresdenmusic.com) just released our debut album for free. In fact there's a thread about it somewhere. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that we employ a 'gratitude box' method, whereby people can pay what they like to download it, even if that means nothing. It's gone pretty well - there's no way a thousand or so people would people would have my record if we were selling physical copies like most bands starting out do - i.e selling them at gigs, in local record stores etc. Using downloads is an effective way to reach a large number of people, and if you move in those circles many of those people can get any music they want absolutely free. So why fight progress? Doing it this way has meant that my band is pretty close to concluding a singles deal with a small indie label and securing representation. It hasn't hurt us at all, in other words.

I have to say, I come down on the side of the fence that says - 'if there's no victim, there's no crime.'

That's my opinion and I won't get wound up if someone doesn't share it. Try to be a big man and do the same.

Peace.

I pirate arcade games, mostly because they're impossible to get otherwise. If it's new I won't bother and I do own a NEO GEO that I buy cartridges for. But if it's impossible to get otherwise I have little problem with it.

Similarly, I get, NES, SNES, and Genesis ROMs occasionally, because they're impossible to get otherwise, and I'm sure as hell not paying for them twice with the Wii. Already own most of the NES games I want to play, but the NES system doesn't work anymore. Planned obsolescence.

Perkustin wrote:Its pretty much the easiest form of theft, if it wasn't available i wouldn't do it, hell i'd even get some painting done! Or i'd read some more books.

Oh and I bet we all watch free porn! I don't see anyone crying over them!

A double standard that I find hilarious.

Mr Mystery wrote:So, why do people use software, movie and music piracy? What is the justification?

I guess people like free stuff , especially if its easily pirated.

Personally i dont think there are any justifications for it period. Will people try to justify it? of course , but thats abit like lying to one's self for stealing.

I wouldn't be so tempted to pirate things if the entertainment industry wasn't so bloated with multi million dollar directors, executives, and actors. The same with the music industry. I don't pirate games, and I only pirate books I have no intention of buying materially but still want to be able to peruse usefully (codexes for example, kinda hard to play if you dont know what you're fighting, but I'm not gonna buy every codex). I buy all items I think are worth buying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:So, why do people use software, movie and music piracy? What is the justification?

I guess people like free stuff , especially if its easily pirated.

Personally i dont think there are any justifications for it period. Will people try to justify it? of course , but thats abit like lying to one's self for stealing.

Copying and stealing aren't the same. Theres a reason it's called "piracy" and not "theft". It's largely a civil matter of intelectual property infringement.

LunaHound wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:So, why do people use software, movie and music piracy? What is the justification?

I guess people like free stuff , especially if its easily pirated.

Personally i dont think there are any justifications for it period. Will people try to justify it? of course , but thats abit like lying to one's self for stealing.

The laws of computing say that you are wrong.

Given that modern computers can only copy and delete, they actually cannot physically steal anything. They can only make copies of them. Moving a file from one computer to the next involves copying it to the second computer and deleting it from the first. Moving a file from one folder to the next is more akin to renaming a file as usually no copying or deleting takes place when you do that. Moving a file into a zip file is basically copying and compressing that file into the zip folder (a collection of compressed files) and deleting the original. Listening to a song on youtube, you copy the video several times, any one of which can, with the right software, be kept on your computer so that you can watch it without having to go to youtube again.

When you copy something, the original version doesn't have to be deleted. Therefor, nothing was lost. Basically, while you can argue that it is wrong to "pirate" music, you can't really argue that "pirating" is stealing. Stealing indicates that the object was taken. It wasn't taken, it was just copied.

"Pirating" is more akin to photocopying a famous photograph or piece of art.

Ahtman wrote:

Wolfun wrote:One, I work for Network Rail

Is that an internet company or do you work on Trains? Feels like it could go either way with that name.

It's a train company.

@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Like intelectual property laws! You realize that argument works both ways.

You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Who would piracy laws be protecting then? Millionaires? They're wallets really need that extra lining.

Lord Scythican wrote:You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

That why avatar made so much money? Because it fulfilled the globes needs for highbrow quality film?

LunaHound wrote:While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

You mean like the DMCA which tramples on the rights of consumers to begin with?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

That why avatar made so much money? Because it fulfilled the globes needs for highbrow quality film?

No, it made idiots depressed, much better in my book :d

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Like intelectual property laws! You realize that argument works both ways.

? Im sure it does work both ways.
But there is no denying when we download mp3 or movies ( for examples ) illegally , we are taking away the revenue from legit products? Or are you saying its not?

Lord Scythican wrote:You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

If it's that bad, why want a copy at all?

You see, the 'victimless' crime thing just isn't true. Somewhere in the mix is a poor mook like yourself, a low level worker. If thanks to Piracy whichever product doesn't make as much as they hoped, guess where the job losses are most likely to start?

In a place not dominated by rich bastards.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

That why avatar made so much money? Because it fulfilled the globes needs for highbrow quality film?

Honestly if you went to one of the torrent sites back when avatar was being pirated, you would have seen tons of people who said they downloaded the movie but stressed that if you like it, go see it at the movies. Others said that the pirated copies were a poor shadow of the movie, a movie that should be watched on the big screen. People said the same about Tron.

Now I am not saying these movies were good, but they were visually good which meant a lot to some people. If you can't get a good story, then you can at least hope the movie looks good, (i.e. the most recent Resident Evil movie).

Mr Mystery wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:You know the movie industry blames piracy for the decline in quality movies. Personally I blame the decline of quality movies for the increase in piracy. People just don't want to shell out $15.00 for a crap movie anymore. I still buy DVDs and watch movies, but I do that less than before because most of them are truly awful. Who is going to pay $20.00 for one CD with one or two good songs?

I tell you if the movie industry would get its head out of its ass and start making better movies, I am sure they would make more money and see less piracy.

If it's that bad, why want a copy at all?

You see, the 'victimless' crime thing just isn't true. Somewhere in the mix is a poor mook like yourself, a low level worker. If thanks to Piracy whichever product doesn't make as much as they hoped, guess where the job losses are most likely to start?

Because downloading a copy to see a less than worthwhile movie for free, is better than shelling out cash for said movie? People are bored. They watch crap all the time. Jersey Shore anyone?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Like intelectual property laws! You realize that argument works both ways.

? Im sure it does work both ways.
But there is no denying when we download mp3 or movies ( for examples ) illegally , we are taking away the revenue from legit products? Or are you saying its not?

I'm saying I don't care in the slightest that their seven figure salaries might lose 10 dollars, and that the profit model of the music and movie distribution industries is riven with corruption, graft, greed, and immorality. Thus my moral center isn't really impacted. Movie executives are people I might consider stealing from materially, just to spite them. Like a stapler or something.

What the hell?! I agree with Shuma O_O

Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Soladrin wrote:What the hell?! I agree with Shuma O_O

If you did it more often you'd be right more often.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Like intelectual property laws! You realize that argument works both ways.

? Im sure it does work both ways.
But there is no denying when we download mp3 or movies ( for examples ) illegally , we are taking away the revenue from legit products? Or are you saying its not?

I'm saying I don't care in the slightest that their seven figure salaries might lose 10 dollars, and that the profit model of the music and movie distribution industries is riven with corruption, graft, greed, and immorality. Thus my moral center isn't really impacted. Movie executives are people I might consider stealing from materially, just to spite them. Like a stapler or something.

So in other words... Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil?

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Yes. It's an arbitrary decision. Welcome to psychology, we're not omniscient. Also, if I could pirate physical items through bit torrent with no material cost I'm pretty sure I could solve world hunger and poverty overnight. The crux of the issue is the fact that digital piracy isn't theft. It's copyright violation, it has no direct victim unless you admittedly forgo actual purchases to pirate that which you would otherwise buy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:@Mel Really? Hmmm i think piracy is still stealing in the way that its taking away the revenue of a possible sale away from the artist / company of. For example dling mp3 instead of buying the album CD.

While i believe you are right the actual law favors your explanation, i think laws are made to protect us... and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

Like intelectual property laws! You realize that argument works both ways.

? Im sure it does work both ways.
But there is no denying when we download mp3 or movies ( for examples ) illegally , we are taking away the revenue from legit products? Or are you saying its not?

I'm saying I don't care in the slightest that their seven figure salaries might lose 10 dollars, and that the profit model of the music and movie distribution industries is riven with corruption, graft, greed, and immorality. Thus my moral center isn't really impacted. Movie executives are people I might consider stealing from materially, just to spite them. Like a stapler or something.

So in other words... Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil?

No.

Mr Mystery wrote:Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops?

Is it possible to copy cars by right clicking them?

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Melissia wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops?

Is it possible to copy cars by right clicking them?

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Yes but if everyone stole cars, tv's and laptops at the same rate, it would be a bigger loss, or did I just fail at math?

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Thats not how logic works.

If it were possible to steal cars without removing them from the possession of the owner with little risk of being caught i would steal it.

WOAH! lunahound still posts here?

Soladrin wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Yes but if everyone stole cars, tv's and laptops at the same rate, it would be a bigger loss, or did I just fail at math?

These are apples and oranges. Photoshop has been pirated hundreds of millions of times (seriously). If that happened to cars the automotive industry economy would collapse instantly (last time I checked adobe is a very profitable company). Cars are developed then manufactured. Programs, movies, and music are made then distributed. These are not comparable situations, industries, crimes, and it shows bad on you people for comparing them.

Cars would also cost a lot less...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Yes but if everyone stole cars, tv's and laptops at the same rate, it would be a bigger loss, or did I just fail at math?

These are apples and oranges. Photoshop has been pirated hundreds of millions of times (seriously). If that happened to cars the automotive industry economy would collapse instantly (last time I checked adobe is a very profitable company). These are not comparable situations, industries, crimes, and it shows bad on you people for comparing them.

Thank you for stating what I was pointing out.

You mean that piracy hasn't removed the profitability of companies?

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes. It's an arbitrary decision. Welcome to psychology, we're not omniscient. Also, if I could pirate physical items through bit torrent with no material cost I'm pretty sure I could solve world hunger and poverty overnight. The crux of the issue is the fact that digital piracy isn't theft. It's copyright violation, it has no direct victim unless you admittedly forgo actual purchases to pirate that which you would otherwise buy.

Yes thats what i was saying. Although im not going to justify pirating it just because a rich corrupted company dont need my $20 ( soladrin )
If i do pirate something , i'll consider it even to myself , the same as stealing.

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Bingo.

And don't go getting on your high horse Shuma. I said from the very beginning 'cards on the table, I'm anti-piracy'. And all I've seen thus far as justification is a load of bizarre entitlement arguments, such as 'I can't afford it, so I'll just take it'.

And I did start this for an intelligent reason, shame you can't join in in kind.

corpsesarefun wrote:WOAH! lunahound still posts here?

Yep! just came on to check the new blood angels! so hiya corpsesarefun
currently working hard on my orks , wana see them? ( half assembled no paint... )

Melissia wrote:You mean that piracy hasn't removed the profitability of companies?

It has to some, but those are primarily small scale software companies. Most forms of professional software that requires a license to operate (database, autocad, infrustructural, etc) don't have too much to worry about from piracy because companies don't want to be liable for lawsuits should someone report them. Piracy effects the game market in a real way, and it effects music without a doubt. Movies are less effected by piracy then they are the decreasing viability of their distribution medium (theaters and disks are relics).

Ok... the real reason

"start drum roll"

Because I can?

Mr Mystery wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Because a single movie copy, or song, doesn't fetch nearly as much as any of the things you just mentioned.

But you obviously didn't start this topic for any intelligent reason, all your doing is making people speak about it and then bash them over the head with how wrong it is.

But we all know "single one of the copy" multiplied by everyone isnt a single loss anymore?

Bingo.

And don't go getting on your high horse Shuma. I said from the very beginning 'cards on the table, I'm anti-piracy'. And all I've seen thus far as justification is a load of bizarre entitlement arguments, such as 'I can't afford it, so I'll just take it'.

And I did start this for an intelligent reason, shame you can't join in in kind.

You're applying a moralistic argument that refuses to be relativistic when morals are inherently relative and unique to the person. Stop doing that. People don't need to justify gak to you, that they are here trying implies that you asked the question. Which you did. Don't just shrug off four pages of responses that you asked for because you dislike interfacing with the contrasting opinions of others after you ask for them. Especially when you started from logically shaky ground in the first place.

Again, more denial of any wrong doing.

So where do you draw the line? At what point of obtaining stuff without paying for it do you feel the justification ends?

Again, more denial of any wrong doing.

Morality is relative. I don't care. I admitted that three times. Try reading.

So where do you draw the line? At what point of obtaining stuff without paying for it do you feel the justification ends?

Read my first post. It's clear you haven't read many.

Mr Mystery wrote:So where do you draw the line? At what point of obtaining stuff without paying for it do you feel the justification ends?

When I have to physically take an object from someone, then it is stealing.

Copyright violation is still against the law, but it isn't stealing. In truth, the situation is far more complex anyway-- anything I download I wouldn't have paid for anyway, but most of the things I have downloaded I have either already paid for (NES ROMs being the biggest example,. but also some of my music CDs), or I buy afterwards and only downloaded it in order to try it out.

So, 'they has moar munneh than I' is justification for obtaining goods without paying for them?

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

Mr Mystery wrote:So, 'they has moar munneh than I' is justification for obtaining goods without paying for them?

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

Stop being a prick and try reading instead.

If you only started this thread so that you could flame everyone who disagrees with you, then I'm gonna see about getting a mod to close it because you are trolling.

Mr Mystery wrote:So, 'they has moar munneh than I' is justification for obtaining goods without paying for them?

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

I don't think you have a strong grasp on modern American, European, or Japanese law codes.

That was directed to Shuma, and is a paraphrasing of his justification for piracy.

Mr Mystery wrote:That was directed to Shuma, and is a paraphrasing of his justification for piracy.

And you would be correct, except insofar as you utilized the slippery slope fallacy and ended up looking like a fool.

Not really, and you continue to evade the question, of where does the line of logic end?

If someone has more money than you (in this instance, record or movie execs) you feel that they can be essentially ripped off. Where does this end with you.

Not really, and you continue to evade the question, of where does the line of logic end?

Do you seriously not know what the slippery slope fallacy is? Thats it. Right there.

If someone has more money than you (in this instance, record or movie execs) you feel that they can be essentially ripped off. Where does this end with you.

The stapler? You think I'm some sort of samurai who lives his life by a finely codified series of well written examples on how to act? You want to give me a series of situations and I can say yes or no?

It's not a slippery slope fallacy I'm suggesting. I'm asking an honest, open question. At what point do you find obtaining goods without paying for them questionable?

You set the parameters of what you find acceptable and why you find it so, I'm asking what makes you stop there.

Just answer the bloody question.

Damn this popcorn is good.

Paxman is my middle name.

Mr Mystery gets a gold star!

Mr Mystery wrote:It's not a slippery slope fallacy I'm suggesting. I'm asking an honest, open question. At what point do you find obtaining goods without paying for them questionable?

You set the parameters of what you find acceptable and why you find it so, I'm asking what makes you stop there.

Just answer the bloody question.

You just asked me a question with an infinite number of answers that are all situationally dependent. I'm not gonna do that. Learn to ask questions that can be answered, you asked a rhetorical one or at the very worst a question that you truly think I can actually answer. As if I know what I would do in every conceivable situation and am willing to post thousands of pages of text here for your amusement. Please ask questions with specifics, I don't have sit here and entertain you, i'm doing it of my own free will.

Entertaining none the less!

Would you take someones car because you feel they have enough money not to miss it.

Would you take someones book because you feel they are successful enough.

And so on. Or perhaps you aren't comfortable answering the question? So where do you draw the line?

At the part where I can do it with a click of a mouse without a chance of getting busted.

Stop repeating yourself.

Would you take someones car because you feel they have enough money not to miss it.

No.

Would you take someones book because you feel they are successful enough.

Depends on the book, my location, my opinion of the person, and my likelihood of getting caught.

And so on. Or perhaps you aren't comfortable answering the question?

No, I'm pretty comfortable, you're just an awful questioner who doesn't want real answers. Thats sort of been the zeitgeist of this thread from the beginning though, hasn't it?

At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

Mr Mystery wrote:At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

I'm a moral relativist who doesn't believe that modern capitalist property laws are inherently moral and I find that such moral issues exist purely on a case by case basis. Magic. Try not to hurt yourself considering that.

With the use of inane questiosn, huzzah!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:At least you're honest. You do it because you can, and wouldn't if you thought you'd get caught.

Shuma, you however appear to have supplied your own moral justification, and that begs deeper exploration.

I'm a moral relativist who doesn't believe that modern capitalist property laws are inherently moral and I find that such moral issues exist purely on a case by case basis. Magic. Try not to hurt yourself considering that.

So it's okay as long as you say it is? Or have you not really thought your stand point through? Again, if I don't want to give someone my money, I don't give them my money. I don't then take whatever good/service I would have paid for. I go without. If I want it, I will find it at a price I find acceptable, or again go without.

(hassle)Free is an acceptable price.

If they are offering their services for free, yes it is.

But free is so rarely the actual price.

So it's okay as long as you say it is?

Thats how morals work brosky, short of god there is no arbiter of our actions but ourselves.

Or have you not really thought your stand point through?

This is a mind bogglingly inane question. You're basically asking me if I have a plan for what I would do in every event that could ever occur. The answer is clearly no. If this is your standard then you are certainly as guilty as I.

Again, if I don't want to give someone my money, I don't give them my money. I don't then take whatever good/service I would have paid for. I go without. If I want it, I will find it at a price I find acceptable, or again go without.

I don't remember asking or caring for your opinion concerning the situation, but since you chose to give it heres a question. Have you ever borrowed a cd, rented a game, bought a used game, or watched a movie a friend rented?

No, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order. See, answering questions is easy.

Not that into music, so I don't have much of a collection. Renting Games - I have to trust the place I hire it from has paid for it through the proper channels, like the DVDs. Buying a used game...only on Console. Don't do much PC Gaming, and when I do it's first hand. And yes I have, again trusting that the source of the rental has paid for the requisite license.

Soladrin is pretty honest , i give him that.

No, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order. See, answering questions is easy.

Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars". You are every bit as guilty of "cheating the artists" as I am, especially with buying used games. A racket that the game industry has been trying to shut down for decades precisely because it is no different from pirating their games from the standpoint of the game companies themselves.

Not that into music, so I don't have much of a collection. Renting Games - I have to trust the place I hire it from has paid for it through the proper channels, like the DVDs. Buying a used game...only on Console. Don't do much PC Gaming, and when I do it's first hand. And yes I have, again trusting that the source of the rental has paid for the requisite license.

I don't think you understand how rental places or content licensing works.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Shuma Gorath wrote:Have you ever borrowed a cd, rented a game, bought a used game, or watched a movie a friend rented?

...yes...

Why do you hate the artists MM? Why are you taking their hard earned money? How is Tyler Perry supposed to feed his boyfriend, or Britney Spears get that new reality show she deserves? Thief!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars"..

But... the creator did receive money when the rental companies first purchased the copies no?

And the gaming companies , surely they take into account gaming rental is a legit business? where a business of pirating games is not?

Of course i can be wrong though.