|
The U.S. has dealt a major blow to KickassTorrents, one of the world’s most popular illegal files-sharing websites.
On Wednesday, law enforcement in Poland arrested the alleged owner of the site, 30 year-old Artem Vaulin of Ukraine.
He's been charged with criminal copyright infringement, and the U.S. Department of Justice said it was seeking to extradite him to the U.S. The DOJ also seized several domains associated with the service, although the main site appeared to be still running Wednesday afternoon.
KickassTorrents, also known as KAT, has distributed well over $1 billion in copyrighted materials, prosecutors said. Since 2008, the service has run a directory for downloading pirated movies, TV shows, music and more using the BitTorrent protocol.
Fifty million unique users visit the site every month, the department alleges.
Vaulin, who went by the screen name "tirm," is believed to have designed KickassTorrents' original website and overseen its operations.
"During the latter part of the conspiracy, Vaulin allegedly operated KAT under the auspices of a Ukrainian-based front company called Cryptoneat," the DOJ added.
To evade law enforcement, Vaulin allegedly moved his domains to servers across the world, following repeated seizures and lawsuits. Courts in the U.K., Italy and Malaysia have blocked the site.
Vaulin was also charged with money laundering. The file-sharing site generated up to $22.3 million in annual advertising revenue, the U.S. alleged.
It's unclear what the DOJ will do with the domains it has seized, which include kickasstorrents.com, kastatic.com, thekat.tv, kat.cr, kickass.cr, kickass.to and kat.ph.
Law enforcement agencies have also targeted The Pirate Bay, another illegal file-sharing site. In Dec. 2014, police raided its servers, though the site was only temporarily shut down.
source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3098408/legal/us-seizes-domains-of-kickasstorrents-sites-owner-arrested.html
|
Quoting some dude from TechCrunch:
Lesson of the day: Don't buy stuff from Apple. Where it's good for their image they gladly "fight for the freedom of their users" but don't mind helping the feds where it supports their business model. Just so true.
|
the two aren't mutually exclusive. if you value your freedom you shouldn't break the law. I don't mind people torrenting the same as I don't mind 20 year olds drinking in the US, but both are risks with consequences.
|
On July 21 2016 22:35 Djagulingu wrote:Quoting some dude from TechCrunch: Show nested quote +Lesson of the day: Don't buy stuff from Apple. Where it's good for their image they gladly "fight for the freedom of their users" but don't mind helping the feds where it supports their business model. Just so true. Ultimately he didn't get caught because he bought music from Apple, he got caught because he made the stupid mistake of running a facebook page for KAT. That's what opened him up to having his IP compared with the data from various online retailers. We don't know that only Apple cooperated, could very well be that he simply didn't buy anything online in that timeframe from the other companies the authorities asked this of.
|
On July 21 2016 23:19 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 22:35 Djagulingu wrote:Quoting some dude from TechCrunch: Lesson of the day: Don't buy stuff from Apple. Where it's good for their image they gladly "fight for the freedom of their users" but don't mind helping the feds where it supports their business model. Just so true. Ultimately he didn't get caught because he bought music from Apple, he got caught because he made the stupid mistake of running a facebook page for KAT. That's what opened him up to having his IP compared with the data from various online retailers. We don't know that only Apple cooperated, could very well be that he simply didn't buy anything online in that timeframe from the other companies the authorities asked this of. He had a facebook page? Here is my illegal site for illegal stuff on the most main stream, establishment website on the internet.
This furthers my belief that the people running most of these torrent and pirate websites are not the geniuses people make them out to be.
|
It's still bullshit on the part of both Facebook and Apple.
|
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.
|
On July 21 2016 23:29 jimminy_kriket wrote: It's still bullshit on the part of both Facebook and Apple.
Because they shouldn't do anything to prevent pirating? To catch the guy running a giant pirating website? Why would they refrain from doing anything from a guy who is illegally ripping them off for huge amounts of money?
|
We already suffer enough because of Denovu...
|
Never heard of the site... But I assume it'll be as affected as TPB, ie up again in a couple of days? Did this site also do the trick of torrenting the source code for the site?
|
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.
|
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. Because they want it shut down? Also the people who run these pirate sites are normally not the most upstanding citizens and have other side activities that are more harmful. Also this isn’t the content holders, it’s the FBI and local law enforcement.
|
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.
|
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. The counter argument is that nothing physical is stolen, so there is no harm. But there is no proof there is zero harm, only that the level of harm is difficult to accurately calculate.
|
yea. tried to address that in my edit after realizing the obvious retort. there is obvious harm in that they aren't getting paid for the product that is being obtained. having the product be tangible in order to 'feel' like I'm stealing something sounds pretty silly to me.
if someone develops a website for me and I never pay him, did I really steal something?
reply: yes, his time.
oh, so whatever i'm torrenting came free of any time investment on those who stand to receive your money.
so on and so forth.
|
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.
|
On July 22 2016 02:00 Ayaz2810 wrote: 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. .
It's quite the proclamation to assume no significant number of people who pirate wouldn't buy it if they couldn't pirate. Maybe they would, but they would rather get it free. That's a pretty easy motive to contemplate, and we have as much reason to believe there's a significant number of people who would follow that path as we do to believe your claim.
|
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. Yes, but if you provide a service for people to pirate things, people who would buy it on sale might just steal it instead. Which is why they shut down the people who host these sites.
|
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.
|
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. 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?
|
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.
|
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 House51329 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.
|
|
|
|