|
Finland855 Posts
On July 22 2016 02:27 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:04 brian wrote: you're literally saying stealing has no negative impacts. replace torrents with a TV from a retail store.
if I could steal it I would. but if I can't I won't buy it because it's expensive.
I assume what you're failing to notice here is the distinction of how you value a product as opposed to the owner. you're valuation of the shit you're stealing is $0 for some reason. as if it was cheap to produce a $10MM movie. if i pirate a product that i otherwise wouldn't buy anyway, there's no real or potential loss at all to the owner.
Why would you pirate a movie that you're not going to watch? It's just taking up space.
|
You guys are making weird comparisons and assumptions. I can only speak for myself, but i dont go to the movies, i dont subscribe to satellite tv, and i sure as hell dont buy music. Let me give you a real life example that i can remember. My kids said that hotel transylvania 2 was a good movie, and they told me we should watch it. The anti-piracy efforts of the studio have made it so that particular movie is damn near un-piratable (lol made up wurds). So, guess what? Its 7/21/16 and i still havent seen it. No money for the studio from me. On the other hand, i managed to find and watch deadpool last week with no problem. No money for the studio from me. If i hadnt found it? Still no money. Do you see where im coming from here? Now, keep in mind im not talking about whats morally right here. Just the impact of my piracy on the business and financial side of things. Whether or not the images recorded by the movie company hit my eyes and head to my brain, the monetary effect is the same.
|
They don't care about you and your money. They only care about the customers that pirate things instead of buying them. Those people exist.
|
On July 22 2016 02:33 B-royal wrote: It's time for corporations to update their business models. The entire premise of being in the dark about products until after you've bought them is outdated as hell. I don't want to waste any of my hard earned money on shitty products.
I pirate to judge quality. If it's really good à la game of thrones season 1-4, I buy the DVDs when they come out.
this is the updated business model demos used to be a widespread thing, then once internet speeds picked up game devs realized that illegal downloads do basically the same thing, but they don't have to go though the steps of actually making a demo version
these site shutdowns only serve to make torrenting ever so marginally more inconvenient, so that the group of people who torrent because it's as easy as buying the game buy the game instead. since steam etc are a thing they only have to raise that bar slightly, so that's all they care to do.
|
On July 22 2016 03:34 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:33 B-royal wrote: It's time for corporations to update their business models. The entire premise of being in the dark about products until after you've bought them is outdated as hell. I don't want to waste any of my hard earned money on shitty products.
I pirate to judge quality. If it's really good à la game of thrones season 1-4, I buy the DVDs when they come out.
this is the updated business model demos used to be a widespread thing, then once internet speeds picked up game devs realized that illegal downloads do basically the same thing, but they don't have to go though the steps of actually making a demo version
A marginal thing regarding demos. Demos often loses companies money since you know it is a bad product or you have played as much as you wanted when the demo ends.
|
On July 22 2016 03:48 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 03:34 Dandel Ion wrote:On July 22 2016 02:33 B-royal wrote: It's time for corporations to update their business models. The entire premise of being in the dark about products until after you've bought them is outdated as hell. I don't want to waste any of my hard earned money on shitty products.
I pirate to judge quality. If it's really good à la game of thrones season 1-4, I buy the DVDs when they come out.
this is the updated business model demos used to be a widespread thing, then once internet speeds picked up game devs realized that illegal downloads do basically the same thing, but they don't have to go though the steps of actually making a demo version A marginal thing regarding demos. Demos often loses companies money since you know it is a bad product or you have played as much as you wanted when the demo ends. The main reason they don't exist any more is that they take a lot of production to create and bug test separate from the main game. Much of the QA does not carry over. Its just a question of man hours.
|
On July 22 2016 03:15 Ayaz2810 wrote: You guys are making weird comparisons and assumptions. I can only speak for myself, but i dont go to the movies, i dont subscribe to satellite tv, and i sure as hell dont buy music. Let me give you a real life example that i can remember. My kids said that hotel transylvania 2 was a good movie, and they told me we should watch it. The anti-piracy efforts of the studio have made it so that particular movie is damn near un-piratable (lol made up wurds). So, guess what? Its 7/21/16 and i still havent seen it. No money for the studio from me. On the other hand, i managed to find and watch deadpool last week with no problem. No money for the studio from me. If i hadnt found it? Still no money. Do you see where im coming from here? Now, keep in mind im not talking about whats morally right here. Just the impact of my piracy on the business and financial side of things. Whether or not the images recorded by the movie company hit my eyes and head to my brain, the monetary effect is the same.
And let me guess your attitude that you don't buy music is based on its easy availability for free? Surely you don't actually think music should be made free for everyone, based on some idea that music shouldn't be profitable. So if music was not easily available for free, would you not listen to music at all? Is that what you did before the days of pirating?
|
|
On July 22 2016 04:17 Doodsmack wrote: Is that what you did before the days of pirating? None of us here lived before the days of pirating, it's as old as recording. People were smuggling and pressing bootleg vinyls even in communist Romania when our borders were militarized and barely anyone was going in and out of the country, then when cassettes became popular that became 1000x easier
|
I'm underpaid at work and not feeling bad about stealing some digital goods unless it's from some very small indepdendant artitsts. This torrenting stuff is one of the greatest way to redistribute wealth amongst people, enjoy it.
|
I love that any time a torrent hosting site gets shut down and raided, the entire thread turns into people justifying their own piracy to no one in particular.
|
Australia18228 Posts
$22.3 million in annual advertising revenue is the biggest surprise to me.
|
On July 22 2016 04:45 Inflicted wrote: $22.3 million in annual advertising revenue is the biggest surprise to me. I doubt that site would make a tenth of that from advertising even if ad blocking didn't exist. But even if was making 'just' 100k annually from it it's still unethical
|
On July 22 2016 04:39 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 04:17 Doodsmack wrote: Is that what you did before the days of pirating? None of us here lived before the days of pirating, it's as old as recording. People were smuggling and pressing bootleg vinyls even in communist Romania when our borders were militarized and barely anyone was going in and out of the country, then when cassettes became popular that became 1000x easier
Pirating by computer, I should say.
|
On July 22 2016 02:27 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:04 brian wrote: you're literally saying stealing has no negative impacts. replace torrents with a TV from a retail store.
if I could steal it I would. but if I can't I won't buy it because it's expensive.
I assume what you're failing to notice here is the distinction of how you value a product as opposed to the owner. you're valuation of the shit you're stealing is $0 for some reason. as if it was cheap to produce a $10MM movie. if i pirate a product that i otherwise wouldn't buy anyway, there's no real or potential loss at all to the owner.
except that you now have it in possession and you wouldn't otherwise except by purchasing it. they have lost their ownership - which includes the right to distribute it the way they want - which you have taken from them. you have declared that they don't have the right to not have what they own stolen from them simply because it is easy to steal it.
what you're saying is that you get to determine the value of other people's merchandise. nope, they do. it's theirs, not yours. you only get to decide its worth regarding your decision to purchase it or not. "i think it's worth $2 not $5 so i'm not going to buy it." not "I think it's worth $2 (or $0) not 5$ so i'm going to steal it."
if i steal a car i never would have bought does it mean there was no loss to the owner? the only difference is ease of duplication. it's easier to duplicate bits of information on a hard drive than it is to duplicate an automobile. as a matter of principle there is zero difference. i've never understood that bit of argument from people who say pirating is okay. people spent time and money and energy to create it, it being extremely easy to duplicate is irrelevant.
|
On July 22 2016 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:27 -NegativeZero- wrote:On July 22 2016 02:04 brian wrote: you're literally saying stealing has no negative impacts. replace torrents with a TV from a retail store.
if I could steal it I would. but if I can't I won't buy it because it's expensive.
I assume what you're failing to notice here is the distinction of how you value a product as opposed to the owner. you're valuation of the shit you're stealing is $0 for some reason. as if it was cheap to produce a $10MM movie. if i pirate a product that i otherwise wouldn't buy anyway, there's no real or potential loss at all to the owner. except that you now have it in possession and you wouldn't otherwise except by purchasing it. they have lost their ownership - which includes the right to distribute it the way they want - which you have taken from them. you have declared that they don't have the right to not have what they own stolen from them simply because it is easy to steal it. what you're saying is that you get to determine the value of other people's merchandise. nope, they do. it's theirs, not yours. you only get to decide its worth regarding your decision to purchase it or not. "i think it's worth $2 not $5 so i'm not going to buy it." not "I think it's worth $2 (or $0) not 5$ so i'm going to steal it." if i steal a car i never would have bought does it mean there was no loss to the owner? the only difference is ease of duplication. it's easier to duplicate bits of information on a hard drive than it is to duplicate an automobile. as a matter of principle there is zero difference. i've never understood that bit of argument from people who say pirating is okay. people spent time and money and energy to create it, it being extremely easy to duplicate is irrelevant.
Yes, if you duplicate a car that you would never have bought there is no loss to the owner that got his car duplicated. I'm suprised you've never understood the argument, I can go step by step if you want.
Anyway, if people only pirated zero marginal cost goods that they would never have bought otherwise, pirating would be a social gain with no downside. There problem is that most people aren't that morally upright and pirate things they would otherwise have bought (though this is partially offset by people who pirate and later buy it who would never have bought it without knowing the product's quality).
|
Don't tell me GoT would be as famous as they currently are if we didn't have torrents or streams.
|
On July 22 2016 05:57 RaiZ wrote: Don't tell me GoT would be as famous as they currently are if we didn't have torrents or streams. Sure. HBO said they need better ways for people view their products. But that has little to do with the people profiting off of hosting these torrent sites.
|
Well then that's another matter, but I'd be more concerned about the others problems than this pirate's thing. Unfortunately, that's not where the money flows.
|
On July 22 2016 06:16 RaiZ wrote: Well then that's another matter, but I'd be more concerned about the others problems than this pirate's thing. Unfortunately, that's not where the money flows. Just because there are other problems in the world doesn't mean this one doesn't matter. We are not required to address problems one at a time. Also, the people who hosts these sites are normally not upstanding citizens and often have other illegal side projects.
|
|
|
|