gendoikari87 wrote:anyone heard of this, is this legit and what sites were targetted? seems like a massive breach of privacy if they do.
A) It's warrants.
B) Assuming you're in the US, there isn't a specifically stated "right to privacy." The 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
provides some protection of privacy (and some federal/state laws provide additional protection), but in this situation, where warrants have been issued, there's no violation of privacy (barring any malfeasance by the police in obtaining IP records or in presenting evidence to a judge).
C) If you're concerned about this, it's probably because you're pirating stuff. Don't.
gendoikari87 wrote:anyone heard of this, is this legit and what sites were targetted? seems like a massive breach of privacy if they do.
That would be so awesome. Alas I doubt it.
Yes. Thanks to my efforts, all illegal downloaders have been dealt with, making this a sketchy rumor at best where the doubters are abducted kicking and screaming into the night, their children ever wondering what happened to Mr. and/or Mrs. Doubter.
gendoikari87 wrote:anyone heard of this, is this legit and what sites were targetted? seems like a massive breach of privacy if they do.
A) It's warrants.
B) Assuming you're in the US, there isn't a specifically stated "right to privacy." The 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
provides some protection of privacy (and some federal/state laws provide additional protection), but in this situation, where warrants have been issued, there's no violation of privacy (barring any malfeasance by the police in obtaining IP records or in presenting evidence to a judge).
C) If you're concerned about this, it's probably because you're pirating stuff. Don't.
Wrong, it's called the ninth ammendment. and there is not enough evidence with IP adresses attained from sites, as those are easily hijacked.
C) I'll do things my way, you keep paying through the nose.
i dont download stuff illegaly. i think the gov't should come down with a hammer of justice and give 1 life sentence for each pirated song!!! jk, but i do think they should crack down
They should crack down on the sources of the data, eg. the servers for The Pirate Bay. When I torrent something, which is rarely, I only consider myself "stealing" if I put it on a disk. What I download, which is always just a single track from an album that I buy later, I consider to be just a data package, that's on The Internet, a public domain. Once it's there, these large corporations should have no control over it. I'm all for shutting down these websites and thus stopping people from pirating huge amounts of music and movies and then distributing them, but the odd track which I then buy does little to harm anyone.
and while on an individual basis, is fine, but there are probably millions of people with the same attitude, which throughout the course of a year can cost corperations millions of dollars because that is money that they miss out on when someone downloads illegaly for free than actually pays for the song/video/whatever.
Yes I agree, and I wouldn't do it at all if I didn't then go out and buy the full package. As it stands, I buy a single track from an album, if it's good, I'll buy the album (from a store, as itunes contributes next to nothing to the actual band). If I don't like the track, I honestly take it upon myself to delete it. I do the same for series's. The Ricky Gervais Show is now one of my all time favorite shows. When I was told about it, I downloaded a single episode from their XFM radio shows, said "Well this is amazing" and then downloaded the podcasts back when they were free. My opinion on corporations trying to control the internet still stands.
I know, which is why such websites should be shut-down at source. The Internet is a public domain, barring things like Child-porn and other such disgusting things like animal cruelty, you should be able to search for anything you want, download whatever you want and it shouldn't be controlled by these corporations because of a slightly damaged profit margin.
A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
That is true, but a huge corporation like Sony isn't going to feel the effects of a few million bucks lost to piraters. They have lots of people essentially stealing their stuff, but they can take it. The smaller companies have a lot less people, so they can take it. I'll say it again, I support their attempts to shut down the likes of Pirate Bay at their source, but I do not support them attempting to add filters to my Internet service to justify a few million lost when it isn't even me who is causing it.
Can take, and should take are different. If someone just stole a book from Borders it would be wrong,yes? Music, Videos and books are all just images and words and images put together. To me, downloading something online illegally and never buying the product is the same as walking into a store and stealing a CD or DVD.
srry, i realise this post jumped around a little bit...
i dont think they are trying to control the internet, i think they are trying to get the money they are due. Trying to control the internet is what some countries do, which is block sites, and send police "visits" if one of their people watching who does what on the internet catches you.
dajobe wrote:i dont download stuff illegaly. i think the gov't should come down with a hammer of justice and give 1 life sentence for each pirated song!!! jk, but i do think they should crack down
I disagree, rather than protect that which is being outdated corporations need to be forced to move ahead into the future by going online like a lot of them already are. Offering their services online and on TV in the way Comedy central and the likes do with some of their series is a step in the right direction. Music might be a bit different story but I don't pirate music.
iproxtaco wrote:They should crack down on the sources of the data, eg. the servers for The Pirate Bay. When I torrent something, which is rarely, I only consider myself "stealing" if I put it on a disk. What I download, which is always just a single track from an album that I buy later, I consider to be just a data package, that's on The Internet, a public domain. Once it's there, these large corporations should have no control over it. I'm all for shutting down these websites and thus stopping people from pirating huge amounts of music and movies and then distributing them, but the odd track which I then buy does little to harm anyone.
Amen, actually there was a swiss study that said that music piraters were the ones that spent the most on music. I.E. Download a song illegally, decide they like it, and they get the whole albulm.
dajobe wrote:i was mostly talking about pirated music
Musics a different beast altogether, you can't really put commercials in your music. but as I said the ones who do download them are the ones that spend the most.
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, because people will keep making music/movies/art for you to enjoy for free. -:S
It's the corporations man!
THey already do, they get their money from advertisements. or theater tickets. Get out of the 90's guys, attempts to crack down on this gak are futile at best. Adapt or die. and the movie and TV industry has chosen to attack the new technology, rather than adapt, a poor decision which only stifles technological advancement.
dajobe wrote:A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
Just want to let you know for 99% of cases, this is utter bull.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:I've heard this argument so many times. Usually from people who don't really understand the entertainment industry at all.
You're right though, you're entitled to everything you want for free.
and you know what, most people will continue, but it can't really be stopped. It's futile to try. They've been doing their best to do so for the past decade and have only spurred it more. If they want to increase revenue they will have to adapt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
iproxtaco wrote:And I agree, but trying to control something like the Internet, as stupid as it may sound, is wrong in my opinion.
it's not just wrong it's the last dying breath of an old system trying to stay relevant. A bunch of old men trying to keep things going the way they started. Sure you can strike down the pirate bay..... if you spend mega resources trying to do so. But there are others out there, many of which are totally anon, untraceable and a lot of it is person to person. The internet is the ultimate free exchange of data and knowledge, trying to box it is a perilous mistake that you can't win. The world is changing, it's the dawn of a new world, and one which will be better than the one that was built by those whom are trying so hard to hold on to the past.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personally, while stealing is wrong, it's also just as wrong for the corporations to attack the march of progress instead of adapting to the changing pace of technology. Hell in a way that's what the fight for slavery could be called (afterall with mechanized harvesting slaves become redundant and just another mouth to feed). but I'm sure everyone here thinks slavery should be legal too right? Right? I mean we don't need these new fangled machines to do work for us when we can do things the old fashioned way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: as for the music industry, it blew up out of proportion when recording came along. free downloads would only send it back to what it was before and that's based on performances. Like it should be. I'm sorry your mega stars will only be making millions instead of billions (exaggerated I know) but they will continue to sell records to devoted fans that care, it just means they have to, ya know, actually be good. Good bye cookie cutter bands, and good riddance. They're going to need a lot more than a nice face and passable talent to succeed. I'm sorry your world is crashing, it's a new world and a new dawn. Get used to it, it happens all the time.
dajobe wrote:A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
Just want to let you know for 99% of cases, this is utter bull.
Wait, companies can get money by means other than profiting from sale of their goods or services?
This sounds like an excellent business plan. I would like to know more.
dajobe wrote:A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
Just want to let you know for 99% of cases, this is utter bull.
Wait, companies can get money by means other than profiting from sale of their goods or services?
This sounds like an excellent business plan. I would like to know more.
we're not talking about dipping below in terms of profits, just that a lot of companies can actually take a good hit to their margins and still be lucrative.
dajobe wrote:A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
Just want to let you know for 99% of cases, this is utter bull.
Wait, companies can get money by means other than profiting from sale of their goods or services?
This sounds like an excellent business plan. I would like to know more.
we're not talking about dipping below in terms of profits, just that a lot of companies can actually take a good hit to their margins and still be lucrative.
Interesting.
Music companies sell music to make a profit. If we allow anyone to take their products for free, how can they maintain any margin at all?
dajobe wrote:A slightly damaged profit margin is not a good thing, if all companies did not care about a small decrease in profit, most companies would not survive. All companies need every dollar they can get and are not a good one if they settle for anything less.
Just want to let you know for 99% of cases, this is utter bull.
Wait, companies can get money by means other than profiting from sale of their goods or services?
This sounds like an excellent business plan. I would like to know more.
we're not talking about dipping below in terms of profits, just that a lot of companies can actually take a good hit to their margins and still be lucrative.
Interesting.
Music companies sell music to make a profit. If we allow anyone to take their products for free, how can they maintain any margin at all?
Records, they will still be sold, just because you CAN get it for free doesn't mean people won't pay for it, SEVERAL webcomics web bands, and game clans have prooven that. But mostly concerts will return to being a major source of commerce.. That or you could try and spend billions of dollars going after a few million in lost revenue. The latter doesn't exactly sound profitable to me.
gendoikari87 wrote:Records, they will still be sold, and concerts. That or you could try and spend billions of dollars going after a few million in lost revenue. The latter doesn't exactly sound profitable to me.
If there's no problem with pirating music, why bother to buy the record?
Although I will grant that concerts are a valid venue. But they don't pull in that much for the record company.
gendoikari87 wrote:Records, they will still be sold, and concerts. That or you could try and spend billions of dollars going after a few million in lost revenue. The latter doesn't exactly sound profitable to me.
If there's no problem with pirating music, why bother to buy the record?
Although I will grant that concerts are a valid venue. But they don't pull in that much for the record company.
Concerts used to be the ONLY avenue for profit. People forget that. and as for why you would spend money on a record when it's free? That's a no brainer, much like the webcomics industry, pepople know it costs money do make gak. and if it's something they like, then it's usually something they're willing to spend to keep it going. People aren't stupid, and it's a prooven method.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
gendoikari87 wrote:anyone heard of this, is this legit and what sites were targetted? seems like a massive breach of privacy if they do.
No. Never heard of this. You got a link? I'm actually moderately worried.
just a rumor I overheard someone talking about, I've been looking myself but i'm not worried, as much as I talk about pirating, I don't do so myself. at least not illegally, I have netflix. and gamefly.
There are always exceptions, and I am sure that there are people who argue that the corperations are wrong to try and get money for the product that they produced...because that makes sense. But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that say that pirating music is ok, pirate themselves.
And as for netflix and gamefly, those companies pay for the right to use those games in their company. This way, the producer still makes money, Netflix and gamefly still make money, and the consumer gets the product in a good deal(i love netflix).
I am sure that the profits lost from pirated music are much greater than you might believe, and even if it is just millions of dollars, where do you draw the line then? when does it change from "just downloading a song illegaly" to stealing then. If piracy is allowed, the music industry will take a great hit because there will be no incentive to produce if you cant make money off of it.
also, WHY would a company be ok with taking a hit?
Accountant: Sir we have lost over 10 million dollars in revenue this year to pirated music...
CEO: its ok, we dont need the money, we arent trying to be successful, or help our investors.
Accountant: Thats right, i forgot, your right sir.
gendoikari87 wrote:Records, they will still be sold, and concerts. That or you could try and spend billions of dollars going after a few million in lost revenue. The latter doesn't exactly sound profitable to me.
If there's no problem with pirating music, why bother to buy the record?
Although I will grant that concerts are a valid venue. But they don't pull in that much for the record company.
Concerts used to be the ONLY avenue for profit. People forget that.
Not sure how long ago you're thinking.
As far back as record companies existed the purpose of concerts was to sell music. It was a way to advertise new acts and demonstrate how true-to-life the company's recordings were.
Music recording as an industry didn't really develop until the means to record and replay were invented, thereby creating a demand for those products.
gendoikari87 wrote:and as for why you would spend money on a record when it's free? That's a no brainer, much like the webcomics industry, pepople know it costs money do make gak. and if it's something they like, then it's usually something they're willing to spend to keep it going. People aren't stupid, and it's a prooven method.
Not sure about the economics of webcomics, but I would wager that most of their income comes from advertising rather than sale of product or donations.
There are always exceptions, and I am sure that there are people who argue that the corperations are wrong to try and get money for the product that they produced...because that makes sense.
There's a difference between making a buck, and squeezing every dime out of people that you possible can. America knew the difference back in the 50"s and 60's, it has sense forgotten what a civilized business market is.
After the gakfest that was Napster and how every record company DIDN'T collapse because of it, I fail to see the major impact of torrent sites.
Because *GASP* people will still buy records the like when they have the songs for free already because they want to support the band.
that is still money that BELONGS to that company, I view illegal downloading the same as going to a store and stealing a CD. I think that if this 500.000 warrants thing is real, the prosecutors need to crack down HARD! piracy is ILLEGAL! if i was a record company i would ask for the heaviest punishment possible and maximum charges. Piracy DOES hurt the music industry whether you guys believe it or not, and needs to be stopped.
Not sure about the economics of webcomics, but I would wager that most of their income comes from advertising rather than sale of product or donations.
Some do some only have other webcomics advertising, Something positive has two advertisements up right now, and they aren't for big companies and before they were for other webcomics. The creator has said specifically he gets most of his income from donations, and he was able to quit his day job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:that is still money that BELONGS to that company, I view illegal downloading the same as going to a store and stealing a CD. I think that if this 500.000 warrants thing is real, the prosecutors need to crack down HARD! piracy is ILLEGAL! if i was a record company i would ask for the heaviest punishment possible and maximum charges. Piracy DOES hurt the music industry whether you guys believe it or not, and needs to be stopped.
yeah and you know what, you can make it illegal for people to collect water and then charge them through the roof for water, well more than half their daily wages per day. Check out the bolivian water crisis. That was completely legal, didn't make it right.
Not sure how long ago you're thinking.
As far back as record companies existed the purpose of concerts was to sell music. It was a way to advertise new acts and demonstrate how true-to-life the company's recordings were.
Music recording as an industry didn't really develop until the means to record and replay were invented, thereby creating a demand for those products.
You know there was a music industry before the turn of the century right, and that it produced Beethoven, Bach, motzart, and wagner.
I am sure that the profits lost from pirated music are much greater than you might believe, and even if it is just millions of dollars, where do you draw the line then? when does it change from "just downloading a song illegaly" to stealing then. If piracy is allowed, the music industry will take a great hit because there will be no incentive to produce if you cant make money off of it.
holy gak that's so much utter bull. 1) there have been studies to show that those who download illegally spend the most on music, 2) the incentive to produce is still there, there is still money there, even if there wasn't, there's still incentive, creative people create. You don't need to be a super rich rockstar to be a good musician. that's the sort of capitalist brainwashing bs that most real musicians try to avoid before they sell out.
yeah and you know what, you can make it illegal for people to collect water and then charge them through the roof for water,
Did you really just equate the right to drinking water with a perceived right to be entertained?
Some laws are patently unjust. Laws pertaining to copyright are not. Your defence appears to be that the law is (you think) unenforceable. If so why are you pissing ypourself in fear about these supposed warrants?
Piracy is theft. If you shoplift an album from HMV or whoever, going back and buying six albums by that same artist does not make it right.
They should rename it. I don't recall Blackbeard sailing up to a Spanish treasure galleon, perfectly reproducing every item in it, then sailing away again leaving the original perfectly intact. If they want a name, its "counterfeiting", not "Piracy".
If I shoplift an album from HMV, I have to remove it from the building, denying others the opportunity to also purchase it. If I had the magical ability to replicate the CD and leave the store with it, then it would not be "theft", it would be "wizardry." Software Piracy cannot be "theft" in the traditional sense, because nobody is LOSING the item concerned.
When I buy a record I do it to support an artist. I'd actually generally prefer to buy their work as mp3s or whatever, but it usually seems that stuff is only available through itunes and I'll cut off my thumb before I give money to apple or install itunes on my computer.
I think the idea that "the structure" needs to change to suit the internet is a bit one sided. We also need to give the artists time to adapt to the net, and remember that all artists who produce good music may not be net savvy, and this isn't their fault or a bad thing.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:They should rename it. I don't recall Blackbeard sailing up to a Spanish treasure galleon, perfectly reproducing every item in it, then sailing away again leaving the original perfectly intact. If they want a name, its "counterfeiting", not "Piracy".
If I shoplift an album from HMV, I have to remove it from the building, denying others the opportunity to also purchase it. If I had the magical ability to replicate the CD and leave the store with it, then it would not be "theft", it would be "wizardry." Software Piracy cannot be "theft" in the traditional sense, because nobody is LOSING the item concerned.
It is called piracy because pirates take things that aren't theirs, just like taking music or movies one did not buy. It is nice to see 4chan logic spreading around though.
Indeed, AbreitsSchu, you're taking away the artist's right to get money for their creation. That is theft. You are stealing an idea, a package of information.
Illegal downloading is illegal and no matter what it is illegal. How can you rationalize stealing music by saying that webcomics are able to make money purely off of donations? If a webcomic artist quite their job because they got enough donations to keep it running along with supporting their family then guess what their new job is, its being a webcomic artist.
If you look at it the money you pay for music is simply a donation, you aren't forced to buy it and maybe its on the radio for you to enjoy. But saying that you want to have a copy of the song for your own personal enjoyment because you like it and then not pay for it you are stealing it. Webcomics are made for everyone and you can't get your own personal copy unless you pay for it(via printer ink or buying a book they sell), its the same web page that will be on the internet for as long as the author can afford to put it up there. In both cases a person is making a good that they want people to pay for(music makes music and webcomic artist makes webcomics), and need someone to help get their product out for people to hear(music has radio and webcomics use word of mouth) and get paid for it (music has concerts, radio income, and album sales while webcomics have advertiser income, book sales, and donations). Either way we have two groups of people making money off of people who like their services, but if I go online and download a copy of the webcomic's book that he sells I'm still stealing it.
I'd be curious to see a poll of how many posters in this thread who have never made a mixed tape off the radio or recorded a movie to VHS.
Personally, I'm a bit torn on the subject. On one hand, stealing is wrong. There are a lot of talented individuals in the entertainment industry with specialized training that assist in making great music and movies. These days these are the people who contribute the lions share to the quality of the end product. These are the engineers and producers. They deserve to be paid for their efforts. The distribution companies who finance the creation of the entertainment and the artistic process, deserve to get paid as well and of course lets not forget the artist.
On the other hand, the industry has done so well with its business model over the last 50 years or so that it has found a way to make money off of pushing utter garbage.
The market is far too saturated with movies that are not compelling stories told with a true talent or music compossed by a pationate soul.
There is something to be said for the quality of work a 'starving artist' can produce imo.
The technology is there to eliminate the big record/production company model and give more controll to the artist themselves.
There will always be a need for some type of record company / production company as there are so many specialized parts involved in the process, but I dont think the big studio god head is needed and we are seeing the current companies realize this and fight it (as any business would).
Also I think its worth noting, the artist usually fall into two catagories, the superstar or everyone else. The superstar is the bread and butter of the production company and makes obscene amounts of money, everyone else is usually in debt to the record companys for financing their creation process.
So do you support an antiquated system fat from its own gluttony on principal of right and wrong and so the artist makes a little more money?
1.) You can't get in trouble for it.
2.) You contribute to the artist making music.
3.) The pirates life is not for you and I.
4.) A lot of illegal download sites can carry malware and other things, ever wonder why limewire isn't as popular these days?
5.) Refer to number 1
My problem isn't so much that people have downloaded something or made a mix tip, it is when the attitude becomes one that they are entitled to it.
The big company may not feel it, but the small guys do. Warner Bros. may not be crying over lost revenue (though they probably are the greedy bastards) but the key grip on the set that won't get hired again because they are cutting budgets slightly to make up for it. So while the studio isn't feeling it that much, that guy sure is. Way to stick it to the least capable to withstand it.
Ahtman wrote:... it is when the attitude becomes one that they are entitled to it.
The big company may not feel it, but the small guys do. Warner Bros. may not be crying over lost revenue (though they probably are the greedy bastards) but the key grip on the set that won't get hired again because they are cutting budgets slightly to make up for it. So while the studio isn't feeling it that much, that guy sure is. Way to stick it to the least capable to withstand it.
Ahtman wrote:My problem isn't so much that people have downloaded something or made a mix tip, it is when the attitude becomes one that they are entitled to it.
The big company may not feel it, but the small guys do. Warner Bros. may not be crying over lost revenue (though they probably are the greedy bastards) but the key grip on the set that won't get hired again because they are cutting budgets slightly to make up for it. So while the studio isn't feeling it that much, that guy sure is. Way to stick it to the least capable to withstand it.
Pretty much, this.
This is the reason a lot of groups never make it big, because in the record industry, you have to start small, and work up, and it's impossible to do so when you're making nothing from your music, not every artist will be the next madonna or prince, but there are a lot of artists who make good music that if you like, go ahead and support them, what's $9.99 compared to people who spend on GW anyways?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:
gendoikari87 wrote:anyone heard of this, is this legit and what sites were targetted? seems like a massive breach of privacy if they do.
No. Never heard of this. You got a link? I'm actually moderately worried.
Hahahahaha, this is why I buy from amazon, problem?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:They should rename it. I don't recall Blackbeard sailing up to a Spanish treasure galleon, perfectly reproducing every item in it, then sailing away again leaving the original perfectly intact. If they want a name, its "counterfeiting", not "Piracy".
If I shoplift an album from HMV, I have to remove it from the building, denying others the opportunity to also purchase it. If I had the magical ability to replicate the CD and leave the store with it, then it would not be "theft", it would be "wizardry." Software Piracy cannot be "theft" in the traditional sense, because nobody is LOSING the item concerned.
It is called piracy because pirates take things that aren't theirs, just like taking music or movies one did not buy. It is nice to see 4chan logic spreading around though.
Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
What is stupid is thinking that you magically obtained something you did not possess before yet did not take it from somewhere. It just magically appears on your computer, as if a manifestation of your hearts desire.
When the best argument you can come up with is that you don't like how the word is commonly used therefore it isn't illegal then you really don't have much of an argument. That is the commonly used term for IP theft of media. Get over it.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
What is stupid is thinking that you magically obtained something you did not possess before yet did not take it from somewhere. It just magically appears on your computer, as if a manifestation of your hearts desire.
halonachos wrote:If you don't want it then you're not going to download it in the first place.
...and wanting it costs money? Not really sure what your point is. The vast majority of downloads aren't lost revenue, just extra exposure.
Ahtman wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
What is stupid is thinking that you magically obtained something you did not possess before yet did not take it from somewhere. It just magically appears on your computer, as if a manifestation of your hearts desire.
What was depleted when it was taken, then?
I'm not saying it's "right," only that it's a hell of a lot less wrong than people are making it out to be.
halonachos wrote:If you don't want it then you're not going to download it in the first place.
...and wanting it costs money? Not really sure what your point is. The vast majority of downloads aren't lost revenue, just extra exposure.
If you don't want something you're not going to dowload it or buy it so they lose no revenue, now if you wanted it but downloaded it illegally then they just lost revenue.
halonachos wrote:If you don't want it then you're not going to download it in the first place.
...and wanting it costs money? Not really sure what your point is. The vast majority of downloads aren't lost revenue, just extra exposure.
Ahtman wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
What is stupid is thinking that you magically obtained something you did not possess before yet did not take it from somewhere. It just magically appears on your computer, as if a manifestation of your hearts desire.
What was depleted when it was taken, then?
I'm not saying it's "right," only that it's a hell of a lot less wrong than people are making it out to be.
There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
Da Boss wrote:Indeed, AbreitsSchu, you're taking away the artist's right to get money for their creation. That is theft. You are stealing an idea, a package of information.
Am I denying someone else access to "an idea"? And FYI, "I" haven't taken jack from artists, because I buy CDs. If I download something, it is to see whether it blows or not. I would listen to things on "the radio" or perhaps rent them from a Library, but the genres I lean towards get exactly zero radio time regardless of unit sales. If something does blow, then "the artist" isn't getting my money anyway. I also then have a copy of something I already own. I do the same thing with DVDs. On rare occasion, I will download something and not own a physical copy because it is impossible to locate a hard copy of a given item. I buy CDs because its far too easy to lose MP3 data by the terabyte. Its a lot harder to lose a thousand CDs than it is a million MP3s. If anything, I purchase substantially MORE media than I did before the advent of "downloading". Independent studies (not record-company related) appear to suggest that so do many other people.
Incidentally, in the UK we are forced to pay for a TV license (also covering non-commercial radio channels) based wholly on whether we own a TV or not (and not whether we actually watch anything.) Thus I have already paid at least once to see or hear many films, songs and shows. I may well have paid twice if I chose to see said band live (which I often do) or see such and such a film at the cinema. How many times do I have to pay for something before I can watch it or listen to it at will? I don't pay anyone else for the same item five times in the row.
Finally, a thought on "Lost profits". I worked alongside several musicians, up and coming and old guard alike, and invariably they complained that the people stealing from them were the labels, not "pirates". They bemoaned the amount of revenue lost to anonymous suits, not spotty teens with a computer. Many of them would have happily played their music and given it away for nothing, just to get their message across. Many actually shared their own music online just to get it heard, and saw increased sales because of it. So maybe its not as "Black and white" as Sony et al would have you believe?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
halonachos wrote:If you don't want it then you're not going to download it in the first place.
...and wanting it costs money? Not really sure what your point is. The vast majority of downloads aren't lost revenue, just extra exposure.
Ahtman wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Except I'm clearly not "taking" anything, but reproducing it. Creating more copies of the same. Calling it "Piracy" is a stupid idea that makes it seem cooler than it actually is.
What is stupid is thinking that you magically obtained something you did not possess before yet did not take it from somewhere. It just magically appears on your computer, as if a manifestation of your hearts desire.
What was depleted when it was taken, then?
I'm not saying it's "right," only that it's a hell of a lot less wrong than people are making it out to be.
There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
I'm reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) tale of a man on a downloading server, who clicked to download a file. As the file completed its download, the user he had just downloaded from starts to upload the self-same file. After watching, bemused, for a few minutes, he messages the user, and asks him "Why are you uploading your own file from me?" The user replies "I didn't mean to share it, so I'm taking it back."
To re-iterate...nothing has been "taken" or "denied" or "stolen". It has been reproduced, or copied. Thus Piracy is the wrong term to use. Counterfeiting would be slightly more accurate.
To re-iterate...nothing has been "taken" or "denied" or "stolen". It has been reproduced, or copied. Thus Piracy is the wrong term to use.
Laws in regard to property and ownership are not relegated to only things you physically can hold. In the eyes of the law it is still taking something that didn't belong to you. When you get arrested for something, which do you think matters more, your banal semantic argument or what the law says? It is a common usage of the word at this point and protesting is not a legal or moral defense of theft.
Mr Hyena wrote:If the system is really 'bloated' as people say it is; then what exactly is a good system? Theft is theft.
Lol. Theft is theft even when they make it legal and call it something else. Like privatization. It's not wealth generation, it's wealth usurption. But because they had the money to do it from the beginning and pay the right people it was made legal. It's still theft but they have the money to pay for it to be called something else. Do you still not call it theft?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not saying it's "right," only that it's a hell of a lot less wrong than people are making it out to be.
People are made to believe it is wrong via corporate brain washing or as they call it, image consulting. Have enough money, and you can control the hearts and minds of the masses.
If you don't want something you're not going to dowload it or buy it so they lose no revenue, now if you wanted it but downloaded it illegally then they just lost revenue.
Not if they weren't going to buy it before. That's just extra exposure, and hey, if its good most people end up buying it. again look at the swedish study on pirating. and who buys the most music.
Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.
no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
gendoikari87 wrote:no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.
gendoikari87 wrote:
There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
By your own description you admit you are 'taking' something that legally you are required to pay for to be in possession of without fear of breaking the law. As a rhetorician and a debater you are a good physicist.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
Cool story bro
Fact: it's closer to the truth that you you guys are saying.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
Cool story bro
Fact: it's closer to the truth that you you guys are saying.
Fact: it is easier to create conspiracies that than to grasp the incredibly complex thing we call existence that is no where as simple as as corporations are brainwashing us.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
Cool story bro
Fact: it's closer to the truth that you you guys are saying.
Fact: it is easier to create conspiracies that than to grasp the incredibly complex thing we call existence that is no where as simple as as corporations are brainwashing us.
Conspiracy? it's not a conspiracy when it's out in the open, admitted and touted by the ones doing it. Just ask any marketing analyst, or look at the history books.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
Cool story bro
Fact: it's closer to the truth that you you guys are saying.
gendoikari87 wrote:There is a file on the internet, I can pay for it or not have it. I choose to not have it. There is suddenly a free version, I download it, I like this much more than I thought, I decide to buy it to support the creators. See I can do hypothetical situations as well. in fact i'm a physicist, i'm better at it.
Cool story bro
Fact: it's closer to the truth that you you guys are saying.
Ahtman wrote:There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
No, you're justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. Since we can just declare that without actually testing them first.
Srsly though, just because I want something doesn't mean I want it enough to buy it. If I wasn't going to spend money on it in the first place, what is actually being depleted or what is anyone losing? It's still not right for me to take it if I had the intent to purchase, but honestly they lose nothing. That's the only point I'm trying to make and I'm curious what the argument refuting it is.
gendoikari87 wrote:The internet is the ultimate free exchange of data and knowledge, trying to box it is a perilous mistake that you can't win.
China, Iran, and North Korea seem to do a good job of it. Hell, Egypt and Syria turned the internet off for almost a month.
Sorry, but the digital generation still loses out to money, connections, and guns.
gendoikari87 wrote:
Personally, while stealing is wrong, it's also just as wrong for the corporations to attack the march of progress instead of adapting to the changing pace of technology.
You can't attack "progress". What you're describing as an "attack" is just progress itself. The only difference is that its progress you don't like, so instead of calling it what it is, you're choosing to deride it with inaccurate names. Its pretty funny to read, in all honesty.
gendoikari87 wrote:
Hell in a way that's what the fight for slavery could be called (afterall with mechanized harvesting slaves become redundant and just another mouth to feed).
I'm waiting for you to use the phrase "wage-slaves".
In all seriousness though, don't compare the piracy of music to slavery; they are in no way similar.
biccat wrote:
Not sure about the economics of webcomics, but I would wager that most of their income comes from advertising rather than sale of product or donations.
Yeah, web comics work like just about every other independent website in existence.
Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.
no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.
Must buy into consumerism... must buy into consumerism... must buy coca-cola...must buy CDs... must buy CDs... downloading music is illegal...
Really, so brainwashing by corporations tells us that taking something somebody made is wrong? I thought that we learned that kind of thing in preschool, you know when you snatched the clay sculpture from that one girl and the teacher yelled at you...
Its a good that was made, its a good that's for sale, taking it without paying for it is wrong. If you're a physicist and you make an article and want to sell it to some sort of journal or whatever and somebody comes along and takes your article and distributes it to the world for free wouldn't you be slightly miffed?
China, Iran, and North Korea seem to do a good job of it. Hell, Egypt and Syria turned the internet off for almost a month.
Sorry, but the digital generation still loses out to money, connections, and guns.
Good job pulling examples of the most backwater nations on earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
gendoikari87 wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Oh, here's the part where we're all just hypocrites and he enlightens us, pulling the wool from our eyes to show us the ugly truth that we refuse to face.
no, corporate brainwashing as subtle and easy as it is, isn't controlled by a single point, group or person, and therefore is hard to counteract, it is a hardcoded part of the underlying structure that is the way modern capitalism operates, originating in the 80's.
Must buy into consumerism... must buy into consumerism... must buy coca-cola...must buy CDs... must buy CDs... downloading music is illegal...
Really, so brainwashing by corporations tells us that taking something somebody made is wrong? I thought that we learned that kind of thing in preschool, you know when you snatched the clay sculpture from that one girl and the teacher yelled at you...
Its a good that was made, its a good that's for sale, taking it without paying for it is wrong. If you're a physicist and you make an article and want to sell it to some sort of journal or whatever and somebody comes along and takes your article and distributes it to the world for free wouldn't you be slightly miffed?
we get paid a salary, so no i would not be miffed. in fact a lot of us do that for free anyway, it's called advancing science. We understand there are more important things than money in the world. In fact a few of my papers are already free to download. Ideas feed off each other and while the claiming of the nobel prize and other great advancements is fought over, the money is just a good little extra.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, and check this guy out, he's already publishing for free. http://frontalot.com/index.php/
notice MC frontalot has an option to buy, which i have. But that his songs are also free.
What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.
If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.
Now let's say that your department collected journals from you and planned to sell them to pay you back. So you have one source of income and that's the number of copies your departmentsells, but someone saw a copy and posted it to the internet. There is now less of a demand from institutions for your article because they can get it for free and your department doesn't get paid as much. I can only imagine that your department would say "Sorry about the leaked copy of your article, we're going to pay you in compensation for the lost possible income.", before I realize that you would indeed be making less money.
What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.
Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.
If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.
Yeah they do, and pirating may be wrong but you can't stop it. But you can have a brain and circumvent it, like a lot of artists have already done. and again, those that pirate the most, are the ones that spend the most on music so your point is moot. Face it your defending a system that can no longer operate in the way it did originally, and is trying to stave that off by fething over free access on the internet, hampering progress. With that i'm out. I've seen when i'm arguing with drones they keep coming up with the same bull answers and phrases with no real content. You've all started to do that. Good bye.
What if your salary depended on the number of articles you published instead of anything else, a band's source of income is from the music they make and they don't get a 'salary' like an average joe does.
Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.
If a band works for 30 hours on an album they receive payment for the sales of the album and if they work for 30 minutes on an album its the same way. You work for so many hours and get paid for those hours so don't come off with the 'we understand that there are more important things than money' because its basically a lie in most cases.
Yeah they do, and pirating may be wrong but you can't stop it. But you can have a brain and circumvent it, like a lot of artists have already done. and again, those that pirate the most, are the ones that spend the most on music so your point is moot. Face it your defending a system that can no longer operate in the way it did originally, and is trying to stave that off by fething over free access on the internet, hampering progress. With that i'm out. I've seen when i'm arguing with drones they keep coming up with the same bull answers and phrases with no real content. You've all started to do that. Good bye.
Yeah I download music, and I usually don't go out and buy it later.
But, I got a big pile of old cassette's and CD's from the pre-piracy days with 1 really kick ass song that I bought the cd/cassette for and 9 to 12 piles of songs.
I figure the music industry owes me a good deal of quality music to make up for all those disappointments of my youth
Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Yeah I download music, and I usually don't go out and buy it later.
But, I got a big pile of old cassette's and CD's from the pre-piracy days with 1 really kick ass song that I bought the cd/cassette for and 9 to 12 piles of songs.
I figure the music industry owes me a good deal of quality music to make up for all those disappointments of my youth
Not really, if you really liked a song but didn't want to buy the whole album you could always just hope it came on the radio. That's what I did and I don't own a lot of CDs because of it, there are a lot of good songs on the radio by bands I like so there's no need to buy a CD. Now when itunes came out, that was something I enjoyed because I could just buy one song like they could in the old days.
The industry isn't "old" or "out of date" its still working isn't it? That's like saying the use of textbooks is "out of date" because why buy the whole book when you can download pirated chapters for free.
gendoikari87 wrote:we get paid a salary, so no i would not be miffed. in fact a lot of us do that for free anyway, it's called advancing science. We understand there are more important things than money in the world. In fact a few of my papers are already free to download. Ideas feed off each other and while the claiming of the nobel prize and other great advancements is fought over, the money is just a good little extra.
If you're willing to advance science for free, why do you draw a salary?
Who pays your salary? Why do they pay you that money?
I can assure you that you're not paid for "advancing science." You're paid because you confer a benefit to your employer.
gendoikari87 wrote:Then I wouldn't work there. That's forcing people to pay for the exchange of ideas which should be free, and I won't do it. That's atlas shurgged gak level there.
You don't undeerstand Constitutional law (as evidenced by your assertion that the ninth amendment conveys a specific right to privacy) and you VERY cleary missed the point in Atlas Shrugged about leeches/looters/etc. Your position that "I can take it if I want it, without paying" flies in the face of Rand's premise of the exchange of value among willing participants. You are giving NOTHING of value in exchange for the music/show/IP you are stealing.
I hope you have a better grasp of physics than you do of legal principles and moral philosophies.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms
Ahtman wrote:There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
No, you're justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. Since we can just declare that without actually testing them first.
Srsly though, just because I want something doesn't mean I want it enough to buy it. If I wasn't going to spend money on it in the first place, what is actually being depleted or what is anyone losing? It's still not right for me to take it if I had the intent to purchase, but honestly they lose nothing. That's the only point I'm trying to make and I'm curious what the argument refuting it is.
You are talking about whether you you want something or not and I am talking about the legality of it so of course it will seem off to you.You can create all the justifications (or as the theft triangle puts it, rationalize) you want for taking something illegally, that doesn't stop it from being illegal. If you are unfortunate enough to be selected to be made an example of that the argument that you either a) wanted it, but not really enough to purchase it and b) that you really only made a duplicate so it didn't really count will get you laughed out of court as you are fined into oblivion. Odds are you would settle though so they will only snicker. People saying it isn't actually stealing won't feel so clever when they are actually under arrest. Piracy may not be the best word for it but it is the one that stuck and has no bearing on the legality of the thing. You could call it women's lingerie, which would make even less sense, and it would still be a crime no matter how it is rationalized. These arguments work really well when it doesn't matter, i.e. the internet, but not so much where it does.
gendoikari87 wrote:
not directly but both were trying to keep an old dying system...
Even if we except that you have to explain why trying to keep a "dying" system is wrong.
Why should innovators have any more say over what people do than those who like the old ways? Both are imposing their will on others, so it seems foolish to argue they aren't morally equivalent without any further data.
gendoikari87 wrote:
...and what's wrong with the phrase "wage Slaves"
Its utter nonsense. Even if you accept that a person be a slave to a wage, you would then have to accept that they can be slaves to other concepts like science, art, or food.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms
Ahtman wrote:There was a file of a song on the internet. You do not posses this file. You can pay for the file or you can take it for free from another source. Either way, the file was not in your possession before and now it is. You are taking both the digital information that someone encoded as well as the material on the file. These justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just that the arguments and justifications are flimsy.
No, you're justifications do not hold up to even the barest of scrutiny. Since we can just declare that without actually testing them first.
Srsly though, just because I want something doesn't mean I want it enough to buy it. If I wasn't going to spend money on it in the first place, what is actually being depleted or what is anyone losing? It's still not right for me to take it if I had the intent to purchase, but honestly they lose nothing. That's the only point I'm trying to make and I'm curious what the argument refuting it is.
You are talking about whether you you want something or not and I am talking about the legality of it so of course it will seem off to you.You can create all the justifications (or as the theft triangle puts it, rationalize) you want for taking something illegally, that doesn't stop it from being illegal. If you are unfortunate enough to be selected to be made an example of that the argument that you either a) wanted it, but not really enough to purchase it and b) that you really only made a duplicate so it didn't really count will get you laughed out of court as you are fined into oblivion. Odds are you would settle though so they will only snicker. People saying it isn't actually stealing won't feel so clever when they are actually under arrest. Piracy may not be the best word for it but it is the one that stuck and has no bearing on the legality of the thing. You could call it women's lingerie, which would make even less sense, and it would still be a crime no matter how it is rationalized. These arguments work really well when it doesn't matter, i.e. the internet, but not so much where it does.
I said it wasn't "right" a couple of times in this thread already. If I download junk that I haven't purchased, it is illegal. Since laws are just made to make society play fair and aren't a real indicator of moral absolutes, in reality, they lose nothing though in the circumstances I mentioned. I'd never say that in court
He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.
Anyways, I guess we're all just drones compared to the guy who doing the same things over and over again because he gets paid to do so in the name of science. Know what, I think that paying scientists is a dying system because they all say that they are doing it for more important things than money.
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.
halonachos wrote:He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.
Bow before his might.
halonachos wrote:
Anyways, I guess we're all just drones compared to the guy who doing the same things over and over again because he gets paid to do so in the name of science. Know what, I think that paying scientists is a dying system because they all say that they are doing it for more important things than money.
Doctors Ice Cube and Mike Eppes do it for the benjamins.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Remi: Nice use of 4chan-isms
Thank you, I felt they were relevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:He's a physicist, he doesn't have to listen to us or the law unless it was set forth by Newton who was quite liberal on illegal downloading from what I learned in school.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I said it wasn't "right" a couple of times in this thread already.
If you read what I wrote I have not used the word right at all, I'm not making value judgments, but rebuking the 'well it isn't really illegal' attitude. I don't mind if people download stuff as much as when the act like somehow it is suddenly perfectly legal to do so.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I'd never say that in court
At least you have the cowardice of your convictions?
halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.
Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place
Let's try it this way:
If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.
If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.
Capiche?
Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.
Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.
halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.
Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place
Let's try it this way:
If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.
If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.
Capiche?
Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.
Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.
halonachos wrote:
@ Cannerus, they lose the sale and so do the music retailers that are selling them.
Except I've already clarified I wasn't going to buy it in the first place
Let's try it this way:
If I would buy something, and I download it instead, I may or may not buy it but the odds of me buying it later are lowered.
If I want something but would not buy it, and download it, then no sale is lost.
Capiche?
Edit: Add that in the latter option, my interest may be piqued enough to actually spend money on it.
Usually I hear a song on the radio and that piques my interest enough to see what other songs are on the album, I then go to youtube or itunes for a demo of the other songs and decide if I want to buy the lone song I like or the entire album. I don't download a thing and I make a purchase. Although typically if I want something I am usually willing to pay for it, like a videogame. There's a demo online you can download for free(like listening to the radio) and decide whether or not you want the game. If I want the game I either save up for it or I wait for it to go down in price, I don't go try to get it for free.
Congrats?
Thank you. Point stands though, if you really want something you should be willing to give something in exchange for it. That's how capitalism and any other sort of economy works; barter, trade, whatever you want to call it has been around and taking something without giving something back in compensation has always been wrong and later illegal.
People that are argueing that piracy is ok, what you are basically saying is that I can walk into your house and just take whatever the feth I want. when you confront me i'd say "its not hurting anyone, ive paid my dues, i can do what i want, your backwards for keeping things in your house!"
dajobe wrote:People that are argueing that piracy is ok, what you are basically saying is that I can walk into your house and just take whatever the feth I want. when you confront me i'd say "its not hurting anyone, ive paid my dues, i can do what i want, your backwards for keeping things in your house!"
Or your example is entirely fallacious. It's more like if I could walk into your house and make a copy of anything there and then have my own copy. NO ONE LOSES ANYTHING. TRY HARDER.
your example would be applicable if I sold something and you copied, then i would lose profits, and would be stealing. YOU TRY HARDER, i dont get why some people fail to see how illegal/serious/immoral online piracy is...
dajobe wrote:your example would be applicable if I sold something and you copied, then i would lose profits, and would be stealing. YOU TRY HARDER, i dont get why some people fail to see how illegal/serious/immoral online piracy is...
Dear god. Unless I wasn't intending to buy it in the first place. Like I've said 700 billion thousand million times already.
" border="0" />
" border="0" />
pile of old cassette's and CD's from the pre-piracy days with 1 really kick ass song that I bought the cd/cassette for and 9 to 12 piles of 
" border="0" />
