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.

Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

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

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

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

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

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

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 and some laws are outdated and cant cover the current society?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

Is it possible to copy cars by right clicking them?

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

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

Is it possible to copy cars by right clicking them?

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats not how logic works.

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

WOAH! lunahound still posts here?

Soladrin wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cars would also cost a lot less...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for stating what I was pointing out.

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

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

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

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

corpsesarefun wrote:WOAH! lunahound still posts here?

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

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

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

Ok... the real reason

"start drum roll"

Because I can?

Mr Mystery wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

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

Again, more denial of any wrong doing.

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

Again, more denial of any wrong doing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

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

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

Stop being a prick and try reading instead.

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

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

Wow, guess that justifies stealing pretty much anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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