|
On July 22 2016 04:39 Dan HH wrote: People were smuggling and pressing bootleg vinyls even in communist Romania when our borders were militarized stacks and stacks of wax.
in my grandfather's attic is a Commodore 64 and 700 pirated games. the C64's rampant piracy allowed the C64 steam roll hardware like the Atari 800 and put a huge dent in the Apple 2. the dates on the games ranged from 1982 to 1986.
i bet you C64 piracy contributed to the death of the venerable Atari 2600.
On July 21 2016 23:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 23:29 jimminy_kriket wrote: It's still bullshit on the part of both Facebook and Apple. Why? What do they care if some random torrent site is shut down? They work with the companies and businesses to create those products and not with him. He provides zero value to Apple or Facebook in any way. If the FBI comes knocking asking for help, there is zero reason for Apple or Facebook to say no. Industry Canada has come to me asking for my help. I've said "no". It's a waste of my limited time and limited resources.
|
On July 22 2016 06:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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. Is it worse than, say, a cop firing at a therapist trying to help an autistic's guy ? If so, how about trump ? Hospital bills ? There are so many more importants problems right now and the Kat's shutdown is just helping the big US companies to have more money while not contributing at all to the US' wealth.
|
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.
Wow, you aren't a very good pirate then.
https://www.ixirc.com/?q=hotel transylvania
|
On July 22 2016 02:46 brian 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. I feel the only distinction here between this and not paying my web developer is the assumption that a company can't have a value set on its time invested because it's not an individual? is that correct?
No. No that is not correct.
|
On July 22 2016 02:00 Ayaz2810 wrote: Ive used the site many times. I use an aggregate torrent search site that brings up many individual sites that have what I want. I still dont understand the anti piracy efforts. Its not like I was going to pay for the stuff if I couldnt find it for free. So if the company was going to get nothing from me anyway, why does it matter? Seriously. It doesnt make sense.
Edit: want to clarify that people making money from piracy should be strung up, but the average user isnt doing anything negative.
I don't understand how people can actually believe that it's okay to think like this. "I don't wanna pay for this thing, so I'm gonna try to get it for free." Guess what, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, THEN YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT. That's how the world works.
|
On July 22 2016 12:22 SC2Towelie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:00 Ayaz2810 wrote: Ive used the site many times. I use an aggregate torrent search site that brings up many individual sites that have what I want. I still dont understand the anti piracy efforts. Its not like I was going to pay for the stuff if I couldnt find it for free. So if the company was going to get nothing from me anyway, why does it matter? Seriously. It doesnt make sense.
Edit: want to clarify that people making money from piracy should be strung up, but the average user isnt doing anything negative. I don't understand how people can actually believe that it's okay to think like this. "I don't wanna pay for this thing, so I'm gonna try to get it for free." Guess what, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, THEN YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT. That's how the world works.
How the world works and how one thinks the world should work are two different things (without even going into the merit of how the world should work).
|
On July 22 2016 05:25 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: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).
hmm you sound like an economics student. If people get to own cars that can just be duplicated, there's loss to the owner because the owner would have paid extra to the car producer than if 2 people have bought it.
i.e. costs will vary depending on demand
|
I like stealing other peoples content. The more effort and money they put in the content the more satisfying the act of stealing is. I would also be displeased if my content got stolen. However I'm lucky enough to not produce anything worth stealing or wasting time on. I also have nothing to contribute here.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51325 Posts
I torrent because it is easier and alot better for me personally. If i can watch South Park or Silicon Valley on tv i do, but i don't want to watch every movie in the Cinema, not because of price, because the films don't justify it. If i could pay £10 to watch a movie at home instead of paying £10 at the cinema i would do that every time (for certain movies like Bad Neighbors 2/TeenageMutantNinjaTurtle/Ride Along 2 etcetc not big blockbusters i like). People may say wait for the DVD but who has a freaking DVD player these days? Especially a blu ray one that isn't a console or at pc. I watch all my movies/series in bed before i sleep/to help sleep. You buy a DVD and its such a long exercise to break it down to put it onto a USB stick or upload it to plex, Netflix/Amazon prime do not get the movies quick enough to justify their subscriptions especially when the American versions of those platforms have the shows/movies 6 weeks before Europe.
However like i say with South Park/Silicon Valley and maybe Arrow/Scorpion i do try and watch it via the English broadcast as they are normally only 1 or at max 2 weeks behind the US, but that means you cannot discuss the show with anyone as everyone else is ahead T_T
That's my logic behind why i do it and like i said im quite happy to pay £10 a movie i dload or £2-3 a series episode or something but that will never happen due to how the stupid, oversaturated and incredibly dumb the showbiz industry is.
|
On July 22 2016 14:47 kaykaykay wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 05:25 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 22 2016 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: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). hmm you sound like an economics student. If people get to own cars that can just be duplicated, there's loss to the owner because the owner would have paid extra to the car producer than if 2 people have bought it. i.e. costs will vary depending on demand
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think you're making a claim along the lines of "duplicating makes the producer's fixed cost be diluted across less people, therefore he charges a higher price", which I'm not sure I would agree with. At the point of sale the fixed costs are sunk, hence irrelevant to pricing. If anything he might charge less if there's a chance of getting the duplicator to buy legit.
If you said "duplicating makes the producer's fixed cost be diluted across less people, therefore he is less likely to pay the fixed costs in the first place", then yeah, I would agree in principle.
|
On July 22 2016 21:40 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 14:47 kaykaykay wrote:On July 22 2016 05:25 Sbrubbles wrote:On July 22 2016 05:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: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). hmm you sound like an economics student. If people get to own cars that can just be duplicated, there's loss to the owner because the owner would have paid extra to the car producer than if 2 people have bought it. i.e. costs will vary depending on demand I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think you're making a claim along the lines of "duplicating makes the producer's fixed cost be diluted across less people, therefore he charges a higher price", which I'm not sure I would agree with. At the point of sale the fixed costs are sunk, hence irrelevant to pricing. If anything he might charge less if there's a chance of getting the duplicator to buy legit. If you said "duplicating makes the producer's fixed cost be diluted across less people, therefore he is less likely to pay the fixed costs in the first place", then yeah, I would agree in principle.
If the producer only produced that product then that would be a good way of looking at it. The producer is also researching the next generation of product to be able to compete. This is something that costs more or less the same regardless of how many they sell, harder to decrease then building and line costs.
|
|
|
|