Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If the system is really 'bloated' as people say it is; then what exactly is a good system? Theft is 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.

Anarchy, anarchy everywhere.


But, seriously, I don't know, I'm just going to continue buying music, like I've been doing.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

WarOne wrote:In the far off future, warrants will be a thing of the past.

I'll simply swoop in and behead any who dare defy the Copyright Laws of the Emperor!

" border="0" />

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.

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.

To solve, please refer to my previous comment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, that just depends on your definition of "legal" and "moral."

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.

nope.avi

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.

wtfamireading.jpg

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.

Cool story bro

remilia_scarlet wrote:

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:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

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:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

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.

" border="0" />


Fact: no it's not

Pic related.
[/img]

remilia_scarlet wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

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: no it's not

Pic related.
[/img]

Do I have to link you to the swiss study again?

Edit: sorry swedish

>implying anyone cares

remilia, that gif made me lol.

Literally.

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.

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.

Nerdcore, I win.

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.

not directly but both were trying to keep an old dying system. and what's wrong with the phrase "wage Slaves"