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.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's illegality all comes down to rather illegal subversion of the lawmaking process by wealthy businessmen, so arguing that it's wrong because some cokehead suit once bribed some legislators is a rather odd way of approaching the situation.

I think the problem may be that you appear to believe copyright law was invented when Napster first got going. I assure you, it's been around longer than that, and it's a pretty important concept. I'm arguing that copyright law should be enforced, and that you do not have a right to media simply because you believe you should.

And for third time in this thread: research has shown that the biggest pirates are also the biggest customers of the media companies.

And you're welcome provide that research anytime you like. For the third time this thread.

There is only a finite amount of money to be spent, of which only a portion can go to media, and the biggest consumers of media consume far more than they can actually afford, while buying all that they can. it is not physically possible for piracy to harm the media creators, as they are already receiving all the money that can be spent on their products.

That's probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen on Dakka, and I routinely talk with socialist Australians.

There is no evidence to suggest that piracy actually harms sales, except in the case of products that are grossly overpriced. To the contrary, there is some that suggests it's basically just free advertising, and is particularly beneficial to small companies/independent artists who need the publicity.

No. There is quite a bit of evidence, actually.

 Seaward wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's illegality all comes down to rather illegal subversion of the lawmaking process by wealthy businessmen, so arguing that it's wrong because some cokehead suit once bribed some legislators is a rather odd way of approaching the situation.

I think the problem may be that you appear to believe copyright law was invented when Napster first got going. I assure you, it's been around longer than that, and it's a pretty important concept. I'm arguing that copyright law should be enforced, and that you do not have a right to media simply because you believe you should.

Modern copyright law comes from media lobbyists buying off legislators. Law specific to the internet comes from lobbyists from an already irrelevant and outdated industry bribing legislators.

And for third time in this thread: research has shown that the biggest pirates are also the biggest customers of the media companies.

And you're welcome provide that research anytime you like. For the third time this thread.

Search the Ars Technica archives. I'm on a phone, and the interface is rather too obnoxious and unreliable to scour through archives. I could have half a dozen in ten minutes if I had access to a proper computer.

There is only a finite amount of money to be spent, of which only a portion can go to media, and the biggest consumers of media consume far more than they can actually afford, while buying all that they can. it is not physically possible for piracy to harm the media creators, as they are already receiving all the money that can be spent on their products.

That's probably the most absurd thing I've ever seen on Dakka, and I routinely talk with socialist Australians.

It's a slight exaggeration.

There is no evidence to suggest that piracy actually harms sales, except in the case of products that are grossly overpriced. To the contrary, there is some that suggests it's basically just free advertising, and is particularly beneficial to small companies/independent artists who need the publicity.

No. There is quite a bit of evidence, actually.

Either that's just a single picture with a bunch of unelaborated-on studies, or their site is screwed up for android. Also, it's a news site geared towards publishers? How reliable and unbiased.

I don't have a problem with sites deliberately hosting illegal material being taken down. I don't have a right to access other people's stuff for free.

I do have an issue with the burden of proof required to go after individual users. All they have is an IP address, there's no real evidence who it is. IP addresses are not unique to every user and you don't know who is accessing your connection. It's always possible that soneone else will use your wireless if they can.

Also, it seems very common for them to target individuals, not companies. All these large companies and public services that offer free broadband across a public area. Do they get these letters from record companies when someone uses the free broadband to download stuff? London Underground offers free broadband in some stations, there are lots of big companies around here that offer free wireless and it can be picked up in the street. Will they get their Internet access choked off? I doubt it.

Just keep going for individuals in bedrooms, people you can actually intimidate with legal threats rather than evidence.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I do have an issue with the burden of proof required to go after individual users. All they have is an IP address, there's no real evidence who it is. IP addresses are not unique to every user and you don't know who is accessing your connection. It's always possible that soneone else will use your wireless if they can.

Sure, but most ISP's - I'd wager nearly all, in 2013 - have a clause somewhere in the contract you sign with them when you sign up indicating that you will make reasonable attempts to secure your network. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a person responsible for activity that occurs on their unsecured wireless from the point of the view of the ISP. Let me repeat that part before someone twists around what I said - I think the ISP has a right to drop your service if you run unsecured wireless and they get a copyright notice. Obviously, in legalistic framework, that's not going to fly - but that's a different situation.

This isn't a court of law, it's your own ISP saying they believe you're violating their terms of service and then dropping you if it continues. There's no real burden of proof, no real need for them to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt - I mean, they can just drop you for no reason at all. All this other stuff is really just a courtesy, and again, an improvement over the current situation - where the rights holder takes you right to court. before this, they could just cut directly to that step, subpoena the ISP and sue you civilly.

And once there, sure - you have the argument you put forth about an IP not being tied to a specific person. And, while it's a very valid argument, it's also a very expensive one to mount against a legal foe who has, for all intents and purposes, limitless resources to refute it.

Man, I never thought I'd be the one defending such a scheme, but, here we are. The ISP's don't have to spend all this time in court anymore (which obviously, raises the prices for all of the users), the rights-holders don't have to spend any time in court anymore (same rationale) and most of all, even the dumbest person downloading Nickelback albums over public trackers has to face a vastly less onerous outcome - either throttled internet or getting kicked from the ISP, which will force them to find another. Six warnings, FFS!

That's fine if you're guilty, but if you get caught up being wrongly accused of downloading, then you risk having your Internet cut off on the say-so of some record company and an ISP who can't be bothered to fight for you, it's not worth their hassle. That's pretty much why Anazon removed the Space Marine book. All you need is an accusation, no proof of anything to have action taken against someone.

I look forward to all these banks, universities, shops, restaurants, train/bus stations and government buildings having their internet choked off when people use their open wireless to download stuff.

What are the odds you're going to get innocently accused 6 times and a row, though, right?

Also, I have to imagine that all these places that have open wifi only allow traffic on port 80, and then further perform packet shaping to essentially shut down everything that's not normal HTTP/HTTPS traffic, or perhaps VPN connections. It's not difficult to block known filesharing protocols.

I'm probably not the best to give out suggestions but couldn't people just you know put ads on certain things and have whoever is supposed to profit from it get said ad revenue? Maybe just have it all the stuff you watch or listen to all be in one place for ease of access and then just throw up ads to give ad revenue. I mean i hate ads but if it helps the people that make something, prevents this kind of crap from happening and brings a better solution to our problems then i'm all for it.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I'm probably not the best to give out suggestions but couldn't people just you know put ads on certain things and have whoever is supposed to profit from it get said ad revenue? Maybe just have it all the stuff you watch or listen to all be in one place for ease of access and then just throw up ads to give ad revenue. I mean i hate ads but if it helps the people that make something, prevents this kind of crap from happening and brings a better solution to our problems then i'm all for it.

It all comes down to power. They've lost absolute control over their products, and flail madly, harming countless innocents in the process, in some vain hope it will restore the authority they once had. They feel they've lost face, and think nothing of subverting the law to serve their own personal vanities.

The idea's been floated before, but it gets shot down for the reasons enumerated above; they want absolute authority, and will tolerate no debate on the subject.


At least most of the new generation of creators, those who comment on the matter anyways, have practically grown up with the internet, and understand the situation far more clearly than the old guard. As I said earlier in the thread: the war is all but won, for our generation and those who follow know the right of the matter, and will be the establishment when the old guard has retired or succumb to age.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It all comes down to power. They've lost absolute control over their products, and flail madly, harming countless innocents in the process, in some vain hope it will restore the authority they once had. They feel they've lost face, and think nothing of subverting the law to serve their own personal vanities.

The idea's been floated before, but it gets shot down for the reasons enumerated above; they want absolute authority, and will tolerate no debate on the subject.


At least most of the new generation of creators, those who comment on the matter anyways, have practically grown up with the internet, and understand the situation far more clearly than the old guard. As I said earlier in the thread: the war is all but won, for our generation and those who follow know the right of the matter, and will be the establishment when the old guard has retired or succumb to age.

And this is what I meant when I said there's a bizarre Robin Hood complex among those who feel they have a right to simply not pay for copyrighted material when they don't feel like it.

 Seaward wrote:

And this is what I meant when I said there's a bizarre Robin Hood complex among those who feel they have a right to simply not pay for copyrighted material when they don't feel like it.

That's a rather silly and grandiose way of putting it. "Taking from the rich" would require, you know, actually taking something from them. Considering the meteoric rise of the media industries (either of the establishment, as with movies and games, or overall, as with music and games) coincides with the rise of piracy, the only legitimate connection you could draw from the numbers would be that piracy is positive. In the case of independents, it very much is, disseminating their unknown product and spreading their name around, where otherwise they would inevitably wither and die in obscurity; many of them are aware of this, and outright admit it. These are the people who will be the establishment tomorrow (metaphorically speaking), the ones who actually know what's going on, and aren't just lashing out at anyone who dares question their authority.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's a rather silly and grandiose way of putting it. "Taking from the rich" would require, you know, actually taking something from them. Considering the meteoric rise of the media industries (either of the establishment, as with movies and games, or overall, as with music and games) coincides with the rise of piracy, the only legitimate connection you could draw from the numbers would be that piracy is positive. In the case of independents, it very much is, disseminating their unknown product and spreading their name around, where otherwise they would inevitably wither and die in obscurity; many of them are aware of this, and outright admit it. These are the people who will be the establishment tomorrow (metaphorically speaking), the ones who actually know what's going on, and aren't just lashing out at anyone who dares question their authority.

You make a lot of claims without providing any evidence for them whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, you're doing something illegal, and claiming it's actually a benefit to the party you're offending - strictly as a way of rationalizing your behavior, of course. They do not agree with you, and it's their call to make, as they're the copyright holder. I get that you don't like to admit you pirate because you're either poor or simply knowingly acting immorally out of greed, but pretending as though you're the white knight of the gaming/movie/music industry because you're illegally downloading their product is ridiculous.

It's worth noting that the Pirate Bay is endorsed by and endorses plenty of independent artists. I'd say that's at least some evidence.

Right now, they're doing a promotion for Mark Andrew Smith's new graphic novel, "Sullivan's Sluggers".

 Seaward wrote:
[
You make a lot of claims without providing any evidence for them whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, you're doing something illegal, and claiming it's actually a benefit to the party you're offending - strictly as a way of rationalizing your behavior, of course. They do not agree with you, and it's their call to make, as they're the copyright holder. I get that you don't like to admit you pirate because you're either poor or simply knowingly acting immorally out of greed, but pretending as though you're the white knight of the gaming/movie/music industry because you're illegally downloading their product is ridiculous.

When did this become about personal actions? I can't pirate anything, because my only internet access is through this wretched phone. I'm talking about wider phenomena.

You also clearly aren't reading what I'm saying, or you would have jumped on that last post with "correlation != causation" and just to head you off: no, it doesn't, but when y and x increase side by side, while deciding it could just be coincidence is fair enough, trying to claim that x is actually decreasing y, when y is, quite noticeably, not decreasing, is justsuch a leap in logic it's not even funny.

I have to ask: have you ever spoken with independent musicians, or musicians on small labels? The prevailing sentiment amongst them is that piracy is free advertising, and most put their own stuff up for free distribution, since they're aware that they're only going to make money off performances anyways (you know, how it's always been?). How about independent game devs? Again, prevailing mode of thought is that it spreads their name and reputation: it's better for them if someone pirates their game than just ignores it. Even some of the more enlightened old guard are admitting that their industries' party lines aren't even remotely attached to reality, and that publicity is publicity even if it means losing a little control over their creation.

Trying to argue that it's some great blight when the people in the industries who aren't just blindly lashing out at any perceived loss of authority come out and say it's not is just... strange. I can't wrap my head around it, to tell the truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
It's worth noting that the Pirate Bay is endorsed by and endorses plenty of independent artists. I'd say that's at least some evidence.

Yeah, they've got that promobay project. I'm listening to music that introduced me to right now.

On a side note here's the list of ISPs participating in the program according to the wiki.

Participating ISPs

AT&T Inc. companies
SBC Internet Services, Inc.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Pacific Bell Telephone Company
Illinois Bell Telephone Company
Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated
Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Nevada Bell Telephone Company
The Ohio Bell Telephone Company
Wisconsin Bell, Inc.
The Southern New England Telephone Company
Verizon companies
Verizon Online LLC
Verizon Online LLC – Maryland
Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
Cablevision systems
CSC Holdings, LLC (solely with respect to its cable systems operating in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut)
Time Warner Cable Inc.

I'm not affected, are you?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You also clearly aren't reading what I'm saying, or you would have jumped on that last post with "correlation != causation" and just to head you off: no, it doesn't, but when y and x increase side by side, while deciding it could just be coincidence is fair enough, trying to claim that x is actually decreasing y, when y is, quite noticeably, not decreasing, is justsuch a leap in logic it's not even funny.

Whether or not piracy hurts sales - and again, 26 studies show it does, four show it doesn't - is absolutely irrelevant. Stealing Warren Buffett's wallet wouldn't ruin Warren Buffett, but it's still illegal. That seems to be the part that you have a hard time addressing.

I have to ask: have you ever spoken with independent musicians, or musicians on small labels? The prevailing sentiment amongst them is that piracy is free advertising, and most put their own stuff up for free distribution, since they're aware that they're only going to make money off performances anyways (you know, how it's always been?). How about independent game devs? Again, prevailing mode of thought is that it spreads their name and reputation: it's better for them if someone pirates their game than just ignores it. Even some of the more enlightened old guard are admitting that their industries' party lines aren't even remotely attached to reality, and that publicity is publicity even if it means losing a little control over their creation.

And as they are, presumably, the copyright holders, they are free to do as they please with their media. Again, it is up to the copyright holder to make that call, not some internet crusader who's masking his desire for free stuff.

Trying to argue that it's some great blight when the people in the industries who aren't just blindly lashing out at any perceived loss of authority come out and say it's not is just... strange. I can't wrap my head around it, to tell the truth.

How old are you, out of curiosity?

The practical point is that if no-one pays for the music, artists won't bother to make it. You can't live on air, after all.

IMO what will happen is that artists will release their stuff online with an honour payment system and get some money that way, as well as exposure, but the bulk of their earnings will come from live performance.

 Seaward wrote:
The fact of the matter is, you're doing something illegal, and claiming it's actually a benefit to the party you're offending - strictly as a way of rationalizing your behavior, of course. They do not agree with you, and it's their call to make, as they're the copyright holder. I get that you don't like to admit you pirate because you're either poor or simply knowingly acting immorally out of greed, but pretending as though you're the white knight of the gaming/movie/music industry because you're illegally downloading their product is ridiculous.

So would you be this indignant (And you may not be but that's how it's coming across.) if people who pirate simply admitted that they do it because they're too poor to consume the media anyways?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The practical point is that if no-one pays for the music, artists won't bother to make it. You can't live on air, after all.

They can live off of my sense of entitlement for being entertained for free though, right?

 Seaward wrote:

Whether or not piracy hurts sales - and again, 26 studies show it does, four show it doesn't - is absolutely irrelevant. Stealing Warren Buffett's wallet wouldn't ruin Warren Buffett, but it's still illegal. That seems to be the part that you have a hard time addressing.

A study which purports to demonstrate such is immediately suspect, as it's endorsing the party line of a group that practicaly embodies the very concepts of deceit and corruption. Further, just listing off the names of studies with no elaboration doesn't exactly breed confidence, particularly when you're talking about a list compiled by a site dedicated to news about publishing.

And how many times, exactly, has it been explained to you, in both clear and legal language, that conflating piracy and theft is like conflating apples and vehicular manslaughter?

And as they are, presumably, the copyright holders, they are free to do as they please with their media. Again, it is up to the copyright holder to make that call, not some internet crusader who's masking his desire for free stuff.

"I can't argue against what you're saying, so I'ma just ad hominem up in here"?

How old are you, out of curiosity?

24, and evade the point much?


Also, how many times do I have to point out: I am literally entirely unable to pirate anything; my only consistent internet access is through a phone. The keyboard is scarcely larger than one of my thumbs, and the browser crashes or unloads webpages if there are more than a few tabs open.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The practical point is that if no-one pays for the music, artists won't bother to make it. You can't live on air, after all.

IMO what will happen is that artists will release their stuff online with an honour payment system and get some money that way, as well as exposure, but the bulk of their earnings will come from live performance.

That's pretty much the trend we're seeing. Musicians have always made effectively all of their money off performances, with recorded copies basically just building their popularity and profiting the labels. As the barrier to entry with regards to recording and distribution has dropped to almost nothing, the labels suddenly find themself without a role to fill, and thus have just started freaking out and flailing at imagined attackers.

 Ratbarf wrote:
So would you be this indignant (And you may not be but that's how it's coming across.) if people who pirate simply admitted that they do it because they're too poor to consume the media anyways?

Of course. The motivation is irrelevant, except in its usefulness for knocking down these absurd, "I'm actually helping the industry by pirating all their gak!" arguments that come up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The practical point is that if no-one pays for the music, artists won't bother to make it. You can't live on air, after all.

IMO what will happen is that artists will release their stuff online with an honour payment system and get some money that way, as well as exposure, but the bulk of their earnings will come from live performance.

Which I think is a fairly solid system. Short of the production and bandwidth costs, the artist gets to reap the majority of the profits for their work, and the audience feels more inclined to pay when able to set their own price. When given the option to set my own price, I tend to spend $4-8 per album, depending on how I feel at the moment in time, and just how much I'm purchasing. Granted, that doesn't sound like a lot, but I feel a lot more willing to spend multiple instances of $4 or $8 than I am to spend $10 (or more) even once.

Granted, that's entirely anecdotal evidence, but there's an entire massive market for digital media built on that very method of marketing.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So would you be this indignant (And you may not be but that's how it's coming across.) if people who pirate simply admitted that they do it because they're too poor to consume the media anyways?

Of course. The motivation is irrelevant, except in its usefulness for knocking down these absurd, "I'm actually helping the industry by pirating all their gak!" arguments that come up.

That is grossly misrepresenting what is being presented in very plain, straightforward language to you. The phenomenon of piracy is beneficial to those trying to build a reputation in the industries, and irrelevant to the big, established players. Anti-piracy efforts serve to do nothing but waste money, waste the resources of the state, and inflict harm upon random innocents, all in the name of fighting an all but imaginary threat.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
A study which purports to demonstrate such is immediately suspect, as it's endorsing the party line of a group that practicaly embodies the very concepts of deceit and corruption. Further, just listing off the names of studies with no elaboration doesn't exactly breed confidence, particularly when you're talking about a list compiled by a site dedicated to news about publishing.

So, in other words, despite being able to produce zero evidence to back up your own claims that piracy doesn't hurt sales, the overwhelming majority of evidence that shows the opposite is suspect because...it shows the opposite? Fantastic.

And how many times, exactly, has it been explained to you, in both clear and legal language, that conflating piracy and theft is like conflating apples and vehicular manslaughter?

I think you missed the point. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that piracy doesn't hurt the entertainment industry. Even if that's true - and again, the preponderance of evidence says it isn't - it's still illegal. Deciding that a law doesn't apply to you or is rendered invalid because you don't perceive there to be a victim is not how the legal system works in this country, and wishing won't make it so.

"I can't argue against what you're saying, so I'ma just ad hominem up in here"?

The argument is that the copyright holder gets to determine whether or not they're giving out the work for free, not the 'consumer.'

24, and evade the point much?

It's at the heart of the point, actually.

 Seaward wrote:

So, in other words, despite being able to produce zero evidence to back up your own claims that piracy doesn't hurt sales, the overwhelming majority of evidence that shows the opposite is suspect because...it shows the opposite? Fantastic.

Unless your linked site was just broken for android for some reason, all that your evidence amounted to was a picture of a "yes" and "no" box, with names and years in them. Now, if I had a proper computer to work with here, I could look up the studies, and would probably find they were behind paywalls. Considering the complexity of the situation, and the complete and utter lack of reliable evidence as to how much any given thing is pirated, it is all but impossible for anyone to draw a conclusion of harm that is anything but extremely dubious.

I think you missed the point. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that piracy doesn't hurt the entertainment industry. Even if that's true - and again, the preponderance of evidence says it isn't - it's still illegal. Deciding that a law doesn't apply to you or is rendered invalid because you don't perceive there to be a victim is not how the legal system works in this country, and wishing won't make it so.

It's a civil matter, and its only basis in law comes from a bunch of suits passing out bribes to legislators. Arguing that it's bad and should be persecuted because lawmakers have been bribed to permit said persecution doesn't make for a very convincing argument. Attacking the basis of the law, and opposing further draconian measures dedicated to fighting this imaginary threat, is hardly tantamount to pretending the laws don't exist.

The argument is that the copyright holder gets to determine whether or not they're giving out the work for free, not the 'consumer.'

Which has nothing to do with the point that the prevailing mindset held by those in the industry who are actually familiar with the matter is that it's at worst not harmful, and at best much-needed advertising.

It's at the heart of the point, actually.

Considering the point was that you're arguing against the modern, informed belief on the matter, misdirecting onto me with a non-sequitur is nothing but transparent evasion.

For a while there I thought you were making absurd arguments with zero supporting evidence.

Now that we've gotten to your insider information revealing that modern copyright law is the product of a vast network of bribed legislators, I've seen the light.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The practical point is that if no-one pays for the music, artists won't bother to make it. You can't live on air, after all.

They can live off of my sense of entitlement for being entertained for free though, right?

If that is very powerful perhaps you might be harnessed to the national grid as an energy source.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
On a side note here's the list of ISPs participating in the program according to the wiki.

Participating ISPs

AT&T Inc. companies
SBC Internet Services, Inc.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Pacific Bell Telephone Company
Illinois Bell Telephone Company
Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated
Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Nevada Bell Telephone Company
The Ohio Bell Telephone Company
Wisconsin Bell, Inc.
The Southern New England Telephone Company
Verizon companies
Verizon Online LLC
Verizon Online LLC – Maryland
Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
Cablevision systems
CSC Holdings, LLC (solely with respect to its cable systems operating in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut)
Time Warner Cable Inc.

I'm not affected, are you?

I KNEW Charter wouldn't do this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


IMO what will happen is that artists will release their stuff online with an honour payment system and get some money that way, as well as exposure, but the bulk of their earnings will come from live performance.

That's how it works now, the only one making money off sales for songs at present are the labels.

And of course the artists, according to the terms of their contracts.

Sir Paul McCartney didn't get to be worth £750 million from touring.

Once you get big any way, for the majority of the music industry apparently you actually can lose money from having your disk published and distributed