|
According to the BBC news.
"Investigators from the country's Ministry of Internal Affairs raided the data centre that was hosting the website's servers.
Torrents allow users to download music, video and other internet content by downloading small bits of files from others' computers at the same time.
The shutdown is the latest news in a campaign against file-sharing sites.
It follows the US's closure of Megaupload, and several European ISPs (internet service providers) being ordered to block access to The Pirate Bay.
Demonoid was listed alongside both of these sites in The Notorious Markets List - a document drawn up by the US government at the end of last year highlighting services that "merit further investigation for possible intellectual property rights infringements".
It noted that Demonoid "recently ranked among the top 600 websites in global traffic and the top 300 in US traffic"."
|
Demonoid? omg... all the music I downloaded there... this is bad bad bad bad.
|
This BS needs to be stopped.
US needs a reform in intelectual property rights, not this enforcement of stupid laws.
|
|
Oh no easily the worst private tracker site in history god shut down.
What ever shall I do.
I sure can't wait for the monthly 100 page piracy debate thread!
|
Demonoid stopped being a tracker long time ago.
|
I cant believe they are shutting all torrent sites one by one.They should stop censoing internet.
|
I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though.
|
From the articles I've read, it looks like Ukrainian law enforcement is being vague about exactly what laws have been violated, which isn't surprising given how corrupt its government is.
Maybe they'll actually try to examine the contents of the servers for infringing material, but it's most likely just an excuse to seize them and refuse to give them back under any circumstances.
|
It only took them 9 years. I wonder if the powers that be are familiar with the story of the hydra.
Have fun with your 'success'.
|
Wasn't demonoid overloaded with popups and annoying adds?
|
On August 08 2012 05:13 FabledIntegral wrote: I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though.
I agree with everything said here. The laws haven't kept up over time and its reflected in this mass "censoring of the internet" movement. Thankfully many artists release their product for free nowadays, but I'd still prefer there not being a legal issue every time a 12 year old downloads a song they like.
|
Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too?
|
The day I have to start paying for everything again is drawing closer it seems.
|
Now i have to find another torrent website... i have used demonoid since i was freaking 17! i hate freaking censoring
|
On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote: Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too? That would suck. Mediafire is one of te very few file hosting sites that I like.
But anyway I learned of this yesterday while trying to download some episodes on demonoid. RIP demonoid
|
On August 08 2012 05:13 wozzot wrote: From the articles I've read, it looks like Ukrainian law enforcement is being vague about exactly what laws have been violated, which isn't surprising given how corrupt its government is.
Maybe they'll actually try to examine the contents of the servers for infringing material, but it's most likely just an excuse to seize them and refuse to give them back under any circumstances.
They didn`t seize servers, just disabled them.
|
On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote: Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too? Well, as far as I know, mediafire seems to be doing a pretty good job removing all of the files that violate the TOS, or however else you would say it. Though, it's mostly just from my experience though, noticing deleted files.
|
aw damn, I had a crazy good rating there from uploading huge dubstep torrents ^^
|
Someday people in high places will realize that shutting down torrent sites is a useless and futile endeavor.
Or maybe someday legislators will be able to pass another SOPA somehow.
|
On August 08 2012 05:19 mastergriggy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:13 FabledIntegral wrote: I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though. I agree with everything said here. The laws haven't kept up over time and its reflected in this mass "censoring of the internet" movement. Thankfully many artists release their product for free nowadays, but I'd still prefer there not being a legal issue every time a 12 year old downloads a song they like.
Well, I disagree slightly. I'd rather there be an issue preventing that 12 year old from doing it. It's hard to explain, but even if I agree with the statement "it doesn't cause any financial harm to the company" in a large portion (probably large majority) of scenarios, my main gripe is that I feel the burden of proof should be on the consumer, not the distributor/producer.
For example, if I torrent some movie I legitimately would never pay for, I understand that in reality I didn't cause any financial harm to the producer/distributor. But I can't prove it. The general argument at the moment is that because they can't prove financial loss, they can't sue/fine etc.
But I think that argument breaks the system completely, and since I don't believe anyone has a "right" to copy products. And since no "right" exists, we look to the law, which is supposedly on the producer side as they are able to copyright their product (information). I honestly and truly believe that information that is complex enough and clearly took time to develop (as opposed to the stupid "it's all a bunch of 0's and 1's" argument) should be able to be protected - somehow. Of course, this is highly subjective, but the system in place is highly subjective in the same regard. It's just that it's fucking devolved into a stupid petty system where anything can be copyrighted (and patented... my god the patents are even worse).
Arguments of whether or not piracy helps sales I also deem irrelevant, at least personally. It is up to the producer to decide how to market his or her product, not the consumer. Of course, consumers place heavy amounts of pressure on the producer to conform to certain ways, but ultimately it's in the producers hand on what route to take (which will ultimately result in whether or not they fail...).
TLDR: Regardless of whether or not copyright infringement results in financially loss for the producer, it's still the producer's product and they should be able to determine its method of distribution/redistribution (although the feasibility of prevention is an issue). People talk about a "right" to information that has been far too warped and twisted; not all such "information" should be inherently free in my eyes, which is highly subjective and depends on the inherent complexity of the product.
|
Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =(
|
On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =( How so? I can't see any downside to it
|
wait, the government expects us to PAY for music? LOL!
|
On August 08 2012 05:21 yrba1 wrote: Wonder if they're gonna shut down mediafire too?
My god I hope they leave MediaFire alone.
|
Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan!
|
On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =( How so? I can't see any downside to it
Uhh, furthering the precedent of raiding file-sharing sites? Do you work for the MPAA?
|
While it is unfortunate that sites keep getting taken down everyone has to agree at some point that something needed to be done.
I mean, downloading is in a way costing the media industry (music/movies/books/games/applications) so much money (and not going by 1 download = 1 sale) and letting these sites run rampant had to end sometime.
|
On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote: Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan!
Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials.
They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical.
The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable.
|
|
On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =(
i bet it's a bad thing to pirate starcraft, yea?
|
sharing is caring... and what happened to the pre-digital sense of sending information without governments taking a look?
|
On August 08 2012 05:48 Greggle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =( How so? I can't see any downside to it Uhh, furthering the precedent of raiding file-sharing sites? Do you work for the MPAA? I see nothing wrong with taking down sites that are designed help people obtain files illegally.
|
Doesn't really matter. For every torrent site taken down, others take their place. And then there's Usenet which is so much more big than torrents that it will never make a shred of difference.
|
|
It will matter because sites like thepiratebay and demonoid are big enough for everyone to know, there are plenty torrentsites that only link to eachother and never let you download anything or with horrible seeding that alot of people will give up on it and just not download.
|
invasion of the internets
|
On August 08 2012 06:02 Epithet wrote:More bad news. Demonoid Operators Face Criminal Investigation in Mexico. Bleh. That was my favorite place for not well-known music & instructional chess videos :/. If anyone knows a good site like Demonoid for chess improvement please send me a PM!
Wait what?.....
|
They moved their servers to a nation with really weak copy right enforcement laws over and over. But that trick is working less and less, because the governments with strongly copy right laws are heaping on the pressure to shut these sites down. You can’t really be shocked, sites like Demonoid have been using loop holes to avoid the shut down for years. It was only a matter of time before governments started to employ some extra legal routes to get them shut down.
Or to put it better, when you go outside the law, you also lose a lot of it’s protections.
|
On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote: Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan! Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials. They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical. The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable. Some dude printed litle by little a operative working handgun. I think his next project was a machine gun xD http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/uh-oh-3d-printer-produces-a-real-gun/12527
|
Bankers put the entire world in jeopardy of bankrupty, hardly an lawsuits many keep their jobs no big deal. Someone distributes files (illegally or not) and can face decades of jail time. Something doesn't add up.
|
if you were still using demonoid over the last.. I don't know 5-6 years you're probably a newb anyway. These big 'shutdowns' don't really seem significant. I guess if the majority of torrentors are 14-17 year old girls, the government is making progress. Otherwise, they're continually shutting down junk sites, 5 years after they reach junk status.
|
ffffffffffffffffffff... i knew it. easy to get free GSL from over there too :/
|
They'll be back, and in greater numbers.
|
For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D
|
On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D
you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol
|
On August 08 2012 05:31 acker wrote: Someday people in high places will realize that shutting down torrent sites is a useless and futile endeavor.
Or maybe someday legislators will be able to pass another SOPA somehow.
Indeed. They haven't stopped and will continue to pursue this bullshit.
|
On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote: Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan! Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials. They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical. The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable.
The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think?
*If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home.
|
On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing!
|
As long as it's not TPB, I'm good.
|
On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing!
it is.
|
Demonoid will be back up! Cannot find link atm but it's already been stated! Kim Dotcom (The guy who made megaupload) was illegally house raided by the police and taken to jail. Now he's getting out of jail, getting Megaupload back online (Now all free, bigger and better) and is suing the police for the illegal raid! We do have some people fighting back! :D Demonoid will eventually be back up!
|
On August 08 2012 06:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Bankers put the entire world in jeopardy of bankrupty, hardly an lawsuits many keep their jobs no big deal. Someone distributes files (illegally or not) and can face decades of jail time. Something doesn't add up.
Agreed, while these sites makes some people lose money, they also bring a lot to humanity... However some other people through their scheming and lying makes millions and millions of people poorer, out of a job, out of a house... Yet they get to stay rich while file sharers get charged with literally gazillions of dollars.
|
On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think? *If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home.
When 3D printing comes of age, pornography will grab twice the share of the internet it currently has now.
|
I think it's not as significant as it seems. I've seen many, many backups of files that originated from Demonoid hosted by other websites. As for ThePirateBay, their entire torrent list(in magnets) is 70MB.
|
On August 08 2012 06:42 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think? *If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home. When 3D printing comes of age, pornography will grab twice the share of the internet it currently has now.
the day the global economy shuts down, apart from sales of 3D printers and lube
|
On August 08 2012 06:42 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think? *If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home. When 3D printing comes of age, pornography will grab twice the share of the internet it currently has now.
i don't get it? Oo
|
|
Don't worry I'm sure there will be new sites up and running to replace the old ones . At least that's what I would expect, I really don't think anyone can truly control the internet, people will always find a way. Its just too big to police
|
I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
|
On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote: Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan! Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials. They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical. The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable. The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects. But certainly, people will try to push that further, condensing conductor lines onto surfaces by using some kind of removable mask or maybe static charge patterns like a regular laser printer these days doesn't sound that far fetched does it? And while they're at it, why not give the printer a few more robotics, put in an exchangeable tool head so it can swap the glue gun for a laser, soldering gun, etc.? Of course that's going to be expensive as shit (at least for quite some time). But i think, materializing rather complex objects through multi-tool-headed "printers" is more likely to be invented than star trek like replicators using energy/matter conversion, don't you think? *If* printers ever get this advanced and cheap enough so enough people own one, it's going to be one hell of a market mixup. Any product, that is printable, will basically no longer be sellable for more money than the printer components needed for it. This *will* kill stuff like far overpriced mac adapter cables mentioned above for instance, but you also have to see that it will not kill everything manufacturable. Printing stuff at home will either be done a) out of convenience or b) because of the price. But if you need like a ton of pins for your pin board or something, those will still likely be cheaper in the store, because a dedicated machine for building these things will do it cheaper and a lot faster than a capable-of-everything generic printer. Even stuff like legos will be cheaper from the store than printing them yourself, at least in terms of production cost, due to dedicated machines producing them at far greater speeds. Several companies would likely have to adapt their sale prices though, to be competitive with the generic printers at home.
http://objet.com/materials
3d printing is getting there. I saw some of the demo samples from their stuff, it's extremely cool. The rubber was.. rubber -- it flexes and everything. Conductiive and bio-compatable materials are certainly the next step.
Their machines are far ahead your typical z-corp or dimension rapid prototyping machine.
|
To me this feels like an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole. I actually haven't even ever heard of Demonoid before this ^^
|
On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is.
You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^
I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.)
I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^
Just my 2 cents.
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
People who pirate either pirate because they just want to, or because the legal offerings require them to jump through a lot of hoops and end up with a worse product than buying it legally (e.g. tv show only available six months after original airing as boxed set), or because there simply can not purchase the product legally due to age restrictions (15 yo kid torrents pegi 18 title because daddy doesn't give it to him), region restrictions (cf. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones ), or simply not having any money at all (which may or may not be caused by simply being bad at managing it, or something as simple as a teenager who doesn't get any own money from parents).
You have grown up i assume, you have some money now, so of course for you most of these issues aren't issues anymore. But think back a couple of years
|
On August 08 2012 07:23 MisterD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? People who pirate either pirate because they just want to, or because the legal offerings require them to jump through a lot of hoops and end up with a worse product than buying it legally (e.g. tv show only available six months after original airing as boxed set), or because there simply can not purchase the product legally due to age restrictions (15 yo kid torrents pegi 18 title because daddy doesn't give it to him), region restrictions (cf. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones ), or simply not having any money at all (which may or may not be caused by simply being bad at managing it, or something as simple as a teenager who doesn't get any own money from parents). You have grown up i assume, you have some money now, so of course for you most of these issues aren't issues anymore. But think back a couple of years
I do it because I can't always afford it and I don't want to wait an entire year to watch the box set of Game of Thrones! I don't even have HBO! lol
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
I have 5000 albums,, i couldn't possibly afford all that,, and it would be hard to live without at least half of them..
My collection is pretty much complete now though,, most of the music i'll be needing from now on hasn't been released yet.
|
On August 08 2012 07:27 Zinnwaldite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? I have 5000 albums,, i couldn't possibly afford all that,, and it would be hard to live without at least half of them.. My collection is pretty much complete now though,, most of the music i'll be needing from now on hasn't been released yet. You have at least 121 days straight of music (24 hours a day every day), and you need ALL of it? You couldnt get by with a custom pandora station? You couldnt buy some of the ones that you like the most and supplement with pandora? If you listen to music for 8 hours a day every day thats a full year without hearing a single repeat.
That actually seems unreasonable to me, tbh.
|
On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents.
..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing?
|
On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good.
EDIT:
People who pirate either pirate because they just want to, or because the legal offerings require them to jump through a lot of hoops and end up with a worse product than buying it legally (e.g. tv show only available six months after original airing as boxed set), or because there simply can not purchase the product legally due to age restrictions (15 yo kid torrents pegi 18 title because daddy doesn't give it to him), region restrictions (cf. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones ), or simply not having any money at all (which may or may not be caused by simply being bad at managing it, or something as simple as a teenager who doesn't get any own money from parents). You have grown up i assume, you have some money now, so of course for you most of these issues aren't issues anymore. But think back a couple of years Yea, TV shows are one thing that I would pirate at this point. Though I dont watch much TV anyway. If television offered them all online for download I wouldnt pirate at all.
I have grown up, but I still dont have much money (actually going back to college at the moment so I dont have any money). I just buy what I REALLY want and live without the rest. I dont NEED to get that next call of duty game.
|
On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good.
it's theft, lol.
edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.
understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.
|
This reminds me of Metal Gear Solid's information control, some of you guys do not understand that webpages like demonoid are part of the digital revolution millions of people in the third world like myself for the first time in history had access to all this media content from music, videos, films, documentals, software, all this content was either too expensive or inaccessible, with access to infromation our level of education has increased tenfold from the last generation, just look at most hardcore pirates, people who have learned english like myself solely from interacting over the internet, from Russia, Vietnam, Peru, Venezuela, etc, where would I have listened to bands like Led Zeppelin or Nirvana?, those are almost unheard of in my country, but internet has made them incredibly popular between my entire internet-generation, through playing warcraft III I shared my mp3 nirvana songs with so many people from different latin american countries and a lot of those people became fans of this rock band, now that I'm older rock music has taken a second place in my life, now it's books, I got hundreds of books in PDF format, a true collections of classics from 1984 to a bunch of books of Isaac Asimov and Chuck Palahnkiuk and I download pimspleur english lessons for spanish speakers to give it to my local friends who want to learn english, using the internet I have learned 2 languages now and I'm learning a forth one. if i was born 10 years earlier this would have been almost impossible. Almost all this content I got from Demonoid, that's what it gave me, it is such an important part of my life.
Now anonymous members from Venezuela, my country, have put corrupt politicians in the spotlight as frauds hacking their twitter accounts and taking down their webpages, they learned those skills too, the same way I learned mine. If there is something that will turn humanity into a thinking mass, instead of a mindless mass is this abundant flow of information, these people looking to finish sharing of files may have a legal reason, but they live in another age, conservatives, holding the progress of humanity to hold to an inherited fortune.
|
I believe the owner said he would try to bring it back up, just that it will take a while since he's working on it alone. He's afraid to share sensitive information so he doesn't want outsiders to help him. We'll have to be patient .
Edit: isn't it better to open a new thread for the debate about the ethics of piracy?
|
On August 08 2012 07:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:27 Zinnwaldite wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? I have 5000 albums,, i couldn't possibly afford all that,, and it would be hard to live without at least half of them.. My collection is pretty much complete now though,, most of the music i'll be needing from now on hasn't been released yet. You have at least 121 days straight of music (24 hours a day every day), and you need ALL of it? You couldnt get by with a custom pandora station? You couldnt buy some of the ones that you like the most and supplement with pandora? If you listen to music for 8 hours a day every day thats a full year without hearing a single repeat. That actually seems unreasonable to me, tbh.
I have music playing almost constantly, it's freaking great.. I do own atleast 600 physical albums too, mostly vinyl. I buy music quite often,, but i can't buy all of them..
|
On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. Yea, it is theft. But I think the evidence he was asking for was whether it was bad for the industry, not that it was morally or legally bad.
|
On August 08 2012 06:36 MisterD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:54 Greggle wrote:On August 08 2012 05:48 sc4k wrote: Well this sucks, but I was expecting it. People who think that this system is like the 'hydra' are foolish and are fooling themselves. The authorities are going after the main perpetrators because a large proportion of the site's user base does not know any other methods of obtaining the copyrighted material for free. By going after the big sites, they are slowly squeezing pirating back into the niche it used to occupy, and away from the millions of mac-using students and 20 somethings who would probably be okay for paying for things, they just don't like the idea of it when they could get it for free so easily. The producers of this content don't care if sweaty teens in their mom's basement hacking their way through WoW and downloading terabytes of anime carry on with their inanity, it's the millions of middle-of-the-road, slight-techy people that have been hijacked by the piracy movement.
And it is clearly going to be going on and on until it goes back to being a niche activity, and it is clearly working.
Anyway, this is 0.0000000001% of the monumental furore that 3d printers are going to create in 20-30 years, when you can download schematics for products that cost $100+ in the shops and print them for $1. Then shit will hit the fan! Any source to that timeframe? I believe there will be a TON of stuff 3D printers can't print. For example anything with an integrated circuit. The only things I really see suffering from this are more basic things like enclosures, action figures, anything composed of a handful of basic materials. They would also be of much lower quality, for example a 3D printer capable of producing Legos to the same degree of precision as the large factories would render them completely impractical. The things this would hurt the most are bullshit overpriced things like any sort of Apple adaptor dongle or cable. The thing is, "printing" is likely to get redefined if you ask me. The 3D printers at the moment can only glue together some powdery chemical to make objects.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19900_5-disturbing-ways-food-will-be-different-in-future.html
Awww shit - gogo MIT to the rescue. Food printer prints actual food : ).
|
It's quite disturbing how far the political will of the U.S content industry reaches nowadays, I can't imagine that this closure is wholly legal, especially the rumours of hardware sabotage.
|
it doens't really matter whether they shut down it or not its gonna come up soon or later with different name. Just get your servers into a country they can't touch them.e.g sweden.
|
On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.
(music) artists have never made their millions from record sales. they use record sales and radio air play as adverts for their live shows. look at the lists every year of the highest earning mussicians. almost none recorded an album that year, its all the biggest tour of the time.
the people making money from record sales are the record labels. and this is the part where you say that record labels advertise bands and nuture talent, except they dont. record labels use their power and influence battling each other and suppressing truly original artists that they cant pin to a demographic. in the modern age, many artists from youtube stars to radiohead have shown that they make more money, and become just as famous promoting themselves and working hard. giving away music for cheap/free.
but you wouldnt want to actually think through things beyond "its illegal therefore bad".
on the subject of the movie industry, them losing money is what a lot of people actually want. the big 7(?) studios have been around since the beginning of time and have been through crashes before. with the advent of age control on movies and the artistic collapse of the 70s. each time the movie industry has really had its back to the wall its turned to new younge talent to produce real movies that dont fit the current mold. you think all the 'great' directors of this time being of the same age group is a fluke? speilberg, lucas, scorsese all come from the 70s revival in film art. bringing new films to the table to bring people back to the cinema.
with the success of recent films like batman or avatar. record numbers can easily be broken if they put out a quality product that people value. instead what most studios do is look for the next quick buck and throw out fast and the furious 27 for ever decreasing profit margins because its still a safe bet for now. but this treasuring of sequential safe bets seen in music, games and movies is whats driving people away from seeing value in the experience, and so taking a knock off version for free doesnt seem so bad.
industry needs to deliver a product people actually want, rather than try and dictate the mood and then they will recover. piracy is a symptom not a disease.
|
On August 08 2012 07:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:27 Zinnwaldite wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? I have 5000 albums,, i couldn't possibly afford all that,, and it would be hard to live without at least half of them.. My collection is pretty much complete now though,, most of the music i'll be needing from now on hasn't been released yet. You have at least 121 days straight of music (24 hours a day every day), and you need ALL of it? You couldnt get by with a custom pandora station? You couldnt buy some of the ones that you like the most and supplement with pandora? If you listen to music for 8 hours a day every day thats a full year without hearing a single repeat. That actually seems unreasonable to me, tbh.
Most of my music is not on grooveshark/pandora/spotify and I have to download it illegally to listen to it as many bands don't even ship their music to australia. In the cases of the ones that do, often I can't get the whole discography etc, or it will cost me $30+ per album.
Food for thought man.
|
On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it.
It isn't as black and white as "it's theft." Studies have shown that artists actually have made an increase of money since downloading music became popular due to ticket and merchandise sales. It isn't the artists who are hurting, its corporate america. And unlike you, corporate america doesn't care if their baby gets stolen because they worked hard on it, they care because it affects their bottom line.
Personally, I think corporate america could stand for a some more bleeding.
|
On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not.
I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with.
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? because ppl live outside of the US and most of those services you listed are not available. especially for movies / tv shows.
Steam is doing it, seems to be working out for them. distribution using the internet what a revolutionary concept ....
|
On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with.
it's lost money, so yes, it's gone.
i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor.
|
On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor.
It might be lost money, but not for the people who spent the time, work, and creativity making said material.
|
On August 08 2012 08:10 BanditX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. It isn't as black and white as "it's theft." Studies have shown that artists actually have made an increase of money since downloading music became popular due to ticket and merchandise sales. It isn't the artists who are hurting, its corporate america. And unlike you, corporate america doesn't care if their baby gets stolen because they worked hard on it, they care because it affects their bottom line. Personally, I think corporate america could stand for a some more bleeding. eh, I would love it if more artists would release their music freely or under less restrictions, and I try to support artists that do that. but if they explicitly don't want you copying their stuff for free, then it's kinda a dick move to go ahead and do it anyways even if "in theory" their business is being improved.
having said that, I like free stuff and will take whatever I can get. I will readily admit that I'm an awful person.
|
I am so sad. I spent all summer achieving a 5.6 rating so that I could DL whilst in college. I hope they just reboot the most recent backup via different hosting.
|
On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely.
besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways.
|
On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote: [quote]
you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways.
i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no?
|
On August 08 2012 08:23 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:10 BanditX wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. It isn't as black and white as "it's theft." Studies have shown that artists actually have made an increase of money since downloading music became popular due to ticket and merchandise sales. It isn't the artists who are hurting, its corporate america. And unlike you, corporate america doesn't care if their baby gets stolen because they worked hard on it, they care because it affects their bottom line. Personally, I think corporate america could stand for a some more bleeding. eh, I would love it if more artists would release their music freely or under less restrictions, and I try to support artists that do that. but if they explicitly don't want you copying their stuff for free, then it's kinda a dick move to go ahead and do it anyways even if "in theory" their business is being improved. having said that, I like free stuff and will take whatever I can get. I will readily admit that I'm an awful person. Still artists may need labels for promotion, but 90% will still value the fact that you're listening to their music above whatever is left after 50% fee from vendor, 80% cut to label + nasty recoupables on a sale. Go to concerts, support indie films and you're good imho.
|
On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote: [quote] you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past...
the movie industry has been doing better than ever piracy isn't hurting any1.
|
On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote: [quote]
it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait...
lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument
|
On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote: [quote]
you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways.
Maybe they don't go to the cinema BECAUSE they can pirate.
I don't believe most people when they say "I wouldn't have bought it anyway." How can they actually say that? Do they actually know how their preferences would change if piracy wasn't an option?
I really hope piracy doesn't become so rampant that content producers start giving up. I would welcome a SOPA if something like that was going to happen.
|
On August 08 2012 08:30 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote: [quote]
You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^
I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.)
I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^
Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait... lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument okay, no. but not like they can do anything about it, short of cutting the internet.
|
On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =( How so? I can't see any downside to it
Piracy is one of the few things that fights back against the few large media giants. Media giants that brought you such things as more expensive movies only available in 3D (due to 3 gimmicks which were edited in after filming in 2D), managing licenses to individual music players on a per mp3 basis, the downfall of the once great AFI, the rape of beloved childhood franchises such as Indiana Jones, etc.
I dare you to find one musical artist outside the top 40 list that loves record companies and is genuinely supportive of them. The fact is most of them don't give a shit about CD sales since they make pennies on the dollar and sustain themselves by touring (which is a much better way to spend your money, by the way). Bands don't even need labels to release their material anymore in this age. Look at Radiohead. Neither do comedians as a matter of fact, look at Louie CK! All labels have ever done is pressure bands into conforming into a top 40 radio friendly homogeneous blob of suck. Know how a band can succeed? It can distribute its music for free online or at a reasonable price ($5 for a CD is reasonable) which in turn promotes their merchandise and live shows. They can also license their music to commercials, TV shows and movies themselves. There isn't any need for a giant middleman, just a lawyer and an accountant tops.
And movies... Jesus fuck could they waste any more money. Do we really think spending a $100,000,000 on some movies is worthwhile? We're throwing tens of millions at shit-eaters like Tom Cruise for no reason. $100,000 is more than enough for a few months of shooting. Hell, $100,000 is enough for a years work for 99% of professions.
TV shows... where to start? First of all there is no way I'm picking up a new series by tuning in every day at 11am for a rerun whichever year they decide to start airing the series from the start again. There's also no way I wait a year after the finale of the newest season to pick up the DVD. And why can I only purchase these massive packages of channels? I don't want fucking Oxygen and Own, I just want CBS, ABC, NBC, TBS, HBO, AMC, a few movie channels and shitty GSN. I could seriously live with <10 channels with no problem, but I need to pay for 200 shitty music channels and BET to get what I want. Then Dish Network has a feud with AMC and I can't watch Breaking Bad and I miss out on LinSanity because of a dispute which I have nothing to do with and no say in.
Piracy gives us a way to vote with our wallets and say fuck you, adapt to the changing world or at least put on a condom before you rape us.
|
On August 08 2012 08:33 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:30 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote: [quote]
..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait... lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument okay, no. but not like they can do anything about it, short of cutting the internet.
well, you're right, they can't do anything about it. but that doesn't really make it right, either.
Piracy gives us a way to vote with our wallets and say fuck you, adapt to the changing world or at least put on a condom before you rape us.
no, it gives us a way to look at stuff, tell ourselves it's not worth paying for, get it anyway without paying, and then do whatever we want with it whether we like it or not. that's what we do, all of us, and people like you and me don't give a shit. we really don't.
|
Big US companies paying big money for your values! & screw ALL of you who I know are happy with this. Oh, they've already brainwashed the guy above me ^
|
On August 08 2012 08:01 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote:On August 08 2012 07:35 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On August 08 2012 06:38 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:37 nttea wrote:On August 08 2012 06:32 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 06:30 nttea wrote: For every site the government shuts down I'm gonna upload two! Or something idno :D you make it sound like piracy is a good thing, lol you make it sound like it's a bad thing! it is. You are such a quality poster, I love how everything you say is a one-liner with no evidence to back it up whatsoever all the while trying to have the moral high ground and look down on the others posting here. Good job. ^^ I personally do not think piracy is a bad thing. I myself used to pirate many games, mostly because it was almost impossible to find good games in stores over here at that time. Nowadays I barely do it anymore when it comes to games, but I have to say I did purchase legit copies of my favourite games that I used to play, even if only to support the developers. On a similar note, I have never purchased nor intended to purchase a music album, but I do support the bands that I like by buying merchandise and spreading the word among my buddies about how sick good some of the albums are. You think bands mind less album sales if it also means more merch and ticket sales for shows? (yes, I am aware that this isn't the status quo and not everyone supports developers/bands and just pirate material but... if it can happen it will.) I have to admit I never heard of Demonoid before though, but it sucks that this happened. I mostly use Mediafire, hope they don't take it down. Also it's kinda silly people think they can censor the internet. ^^ Just my 2 cents. ..did you honestly just ask me to provide "evidence" as to whether or not piracy is a bad thing? Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. (music) artists have never made their millions from record sales. they use record sales and radio air play as adverts for their live shows. look at the lists every year of the highest earning mussicians. almost none recorded an album that year, its all the biggest tour of the time. the people making money from record sales are the record labels. and this is the part where you say that record labels advertise bands and nuture talent, except they dont. record labels use their power and influence battling each other and suppressing truly original artists that they cant pin to a demographic. in the modern age, many artists from youtube stars to radiohead have shown that they make more money, and become just as famous promoting themselves and working hard. giving away music for cheap/free. but you wouldnt want to actually think through things beyond "its illegal therefore bad". on the subject of the movie industry, them losing money is what a lot of people actually want. the big 7(?) studios have been around since the beginning of time and have been through crashes before. with the advent of age control on movies and the artistic collapse of the 70s. each time the movie industry has really had its back to the wall its turned to new younge talent to produce real movies that dont fit the current mold. you think all the 'great' directors of this time being of the same age group is a fluke? speilberg, lucas, scorsese all come from the 70s revival in film art. bringing new films to the table to bring people back to the cinema. with the success of recent films like batman or avatar. record numbers can easily be broken if they put out a quality product that people value. instead what most studios do is look for the next quick buck and throw out fast and the furious 27 for ever decreasing profit margins because its still a safe bet for now. but this treasuring of sequential safe bets seen in music, games and movies is whats driving people away from seeing value in the experience, and so taking a knock off version for free doesnt seem so bad. industry needs to deliver a product people actually want, rather than try and dictate the mood and then they will recover. piracy is a symptom not a disease.
To add to this, it's worth looking at the release model for Radiohead's In Rainbows and various Nine Inch Nails projects, among others, that shows that alternatives to large label publications are possible and profitable (albeit from establish bands, in the case of music)
The Humble indie bundles also reflect this in the case of gaming.
|
People still use torrents in the year 2012?
|
Noooo not demonoid! I need Demonoid for all the stuff I can't find anywhere else!
|
On August 08 2012 05:37 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:19 mastergriggy wrote:On August 08 2012 05:13 FabledIntegral wrote: I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though. I agree with everything said here. The laws haven't kept up over time and its reflected in this mass "censoring of the internet" movement. Thankfully many artists release their product for free nowadays, but I'd still prefer there not being a legal issue every time a 12 year old downloads a song they like. Well, I disagree slightly. I'd rather there be an issue preventing that 12 year old from doing it. It's hard to explain, but even if I agree with the statement "it doesn't cause any financial harm to the company" in a large portion (probably large majority) of scenarios, my main gripe is that I feel the burden of proof should be on the consumer, not the distributor/producer. For example, if I torrent some movie I legitimately would never pay for, I understand that in reality I didn't cause any financial harm to the producer/distributor. But I can't prove it. The general argument at the moment is that because they can't prove financial loss, they can't sue/fine etc. But I think that argument breaks the system completely, and since I don't believe anyone has a "right" to copy products. And since no "right" exists, we look to the law, which is supposedly on the producer side as they are able to copyright their product (information). I honestly and truly believe that information that is complex enough and clearly took time to develop (as opposed to the stupid "it's all a bunch of 0's and 1's" argument) should be able to be protected - somehow. Of course, this is highly subjective, but the system in place is highly subjective in the same regard. It's just that it's fucking devolved into a stupid petty system where anything can be copyrighted (and patented... my god the patents are even worse). Arguments of whether or not piracy helps sales I also deem irrelevant, at least personally. It is up to the producer to decide how to market his or her product, not the consumer. Of course, consumers place heavy amounts of pressure on the producer to conform to certain ways, but ultimately it's in the producers hand on what route to take (which will ultimately result in whether or not they fail...). TLDR: Regardless of whether or not copyright infringement results in financially loss for the producer, it's still the producer's product and they should be able to determine its method of distribution/redistribution (although the feasibility of prevention is an issue). People talk about a "right" to information that has been far too warped and twisted; not all such "information" should be inherently free in my eyes, which is highly subjective and depends on the inherent complexity of the product.
You can't produce stuff that is too easy to copy, this will never be lucrative in the long run. It is not a (marketable) product any more.
I produce a lot of CO2, which is very important for the growth of plants. Can i sue farmers? No, because C and O are very easy to reproduce, just like 0s and 1s. Getting the 0s an 1s in the right order just isn't enough any more. 1000 monkeys and 1000 typewriters + enough time = shakespeare.
|
On August 08 2012 08:34 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:33 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:30 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 07:36 TheRabidDeer wrote: [quote] Its a bit of muddy water to claim that piracy has been bad or good for the industry. The industry claims bad, but independent studies and looks at the state of the industry claims good. it's theft, lol. edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about. understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait... lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument okay, no. but not like they can do anything about it, short of cutting the internet. well, you're right, they can't do anything about it. but that doesn't really make it right, either. Show nested quote +Piracy gives us a way to vote with our wallets and say fuck you, adapt to the changing world or at least put on a condom before you rape us. no, it gives us a way to look at stuff, tell ourselves it's not worth paying for, get it anyway without paying, and then do whatever we want with it whether we like it or not. that's what we do, all of us, and people like you and me don't give a shit. we really don't.
http://torrentfreak.com/swizz-beatz-on-megaupload-i-was-giving-artists-90-of-the-shit-120726/
Your views are sadly mistaken. It's ignorant people like you that keep the bankers and other fat corporations happy.
|
If you're gonna pirate things you should at least feel bad about it.
|
Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block.
|
On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block.
Yeah, while the CEOs are getting massive bonuses during the layoffs.
|
On August 08 2012 09:01 xParadoxi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 08:34 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:33 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:30 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:29 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:26 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 08:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 08:11 Nizaris wrote:On August 08 2012 07:37 Tom Cruise wrote: [quote]
it's theft, lol.
edit: i'd be fucking pissed if i found out that people stole my web designs, it's something i'm passionate about.
understand that i'm not trying to be all "herp derp you should all be very ashamed of yourselves." because i honestly do understand and see the positives, but really, i'd be pissed, really pissed, and i hate to see when people try to justify it. atleast keep it to yourself, that's how i feel about it. theft would imply it's gone afterwards, which clearly it is not. I have no problem with the creators of the work getting paid, it's the fat pigs in the middle i have problems with. it's lost money, so yes, it's gone. i'm just saying it's not as "good" as you people want to make it sound. while i agree there can be ups and downs about piracy, i still think it's wrong to speak as if people are doing the authors a favor. you never really had the money in your hand so you couldn't have lost it. an opportunity lost maybe but unlikely. besides semantics, you'll find that most ppl have no problem paying for stuff when it is available. steam, spotify and plenty other of services have showed this. maybe one day the movie/tv industry will get it. Most ppl that pirate movies wouldn't go to the cinema anyways. i guess that arguments makes it okay to grab a copy without paying then, no? keep beating ppl with a stick instead of addressing the issue i'm sure that'll work!!! it has always worked in the past oh wait... lol, i'm not beating people with a stick, at all, i'm asking a legitimate question as opposed to your argument okay, no. but not like they can do anything about it, short of cutting the internet. well, you're right, they can't do anything about it. but that doesn't really make it right, either. Piracy gives us a way to vote with our wallets and say fuck you, adapt to the changing world or at least put on a condom before you rape us. no, it gives us a way to look at stuff, tell ourselves it's not worth paying for, get it anyway without paying, and then do whatever we want with it whether we like it or not. that's what we do, all of us, and people like you and me don't give a shit. we really don't. http://torrentfreak.com/swizz-beatz-on-megaupload-i-was-giving-artists-90-of-the-shit-120726/Your views are sadly mistaken. It's ignorant people like you that keep the bankers and other fat corporations happy.
i take it you didn't read my initial posts.
but just out of friendly curiousity, how can you in your right mind think that i'm ignorant for supporting companies and authors that i appreciate, by purchasing their products?
again, i take it you didn't do your homework before you posted. think about that next time you post, please. i could be some sensitive highly pregnant single mom living in a two room large apartment playing left 4 dead and league of legends in my sparetime (which is all the time i got, really) who'd instead reply to you with a long and hateful comment about how much of an idiot you are for not taking your time to read three lines of text before you decided to post.
see, that's one step closer to a better community and oh boy, wouldn't you be happy to make the first step.
|
On August 08 2012 08:58 xpldngmn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:37 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 05:19 mastergriggy wrote:On August 08 2012 05:13 FabledIntegral wrote: I still support fighting copyright infringement (always have), but I really think we need to develop some sort of alternative system. The existing laws suck. I don't really have an issue going after the main perpetrators though. I agree with everything said here. The laws haven't kept up over time and its reflected in this mass "censoring of the internet" movement. Thankfully many artists release their product for free nowadays, but I'd still prefer there not being a legal issue every time a 12 year old downloads a song they like. Well, I disagree slightly. I'd rather there be an issue preventing that 12 year old from doing it. It's hard to explain, but even if I agree with the statement "it doesn't cause any financial harm to the company" in a large portion (probably large majority) of scenarios, my main gripe is that I feel the burden of proof should be on the consumer, not the distributor/producer. For example, if I torrent some movie I legitimately would never pay for, I understand that in reality I didn't cause any financial harm to the producer/distributor. But I can't prove it. The general argument at the moment is that because they can't prove financial loss, they can't sue/fine etc. But I think that argument breaks the system completely, and since I don't believe anyone has a "right" to copy products. And since no "right" exists, we look to the law, which is supposedly on the producer side as they are able to copyright their product (information). I honestly and truly believe that information that is complex enough and clearly took time to develop (as opposed to the stupid "it's all a bunch of 0's and 1's" argument) should be able to be protected - somehow. Of course, this is highly subjective, but the system in place is highly subjective in the same regard. It's just that it's fucking devolved into a stupid petty system where anything can be copyrighted (and patented... my god the patents are even worse). Arguments of whether or not piracy helps sales I also deem irrelevant, at least personally. It is up to the producer to decide how to market his or her product, not the consumer. Of course, consumers place heavy amounts of pressure on the producer to conform to certain ways, but ultimately it's in the producers hand on what route to take (which will ultimately result in whether or not they fail...). TLDR: Regardless of whether or not copyright infringement results in financially loss for the producer, it's still the producer's product and they should be able to determine its method of distribution/redistribution (although the feasibility of prevention is an issue). People talk about a "right" to information that has been far too warped and twisted; not all such "information" should be inherently free in my eyes, which is highly subjective and depends on the inherent complexity of the product. You can't produce stuff that is too easy to copy, this will never be lucrative in the long run. It is not a (marketable) product any more. I produce a lot of CO2, which is very important for the growth of plants. Can i sue farmers? No, because C and O are very easy to reproduce, just like 0s and 1s. Getting the 0s an 1s in the right order just isn't enough any more. 1000 monkeys and 1000 typewriters + enough time = shakespeare.
Except you producing CO2 isn't a unique process. And getting the 0's and 1's in the correct order is a highly unique process that requires hundreds on manhours to produce. The monkey + typewriter analogy isn't even pertinent in this situation. Because it's such an expensive and unique process to produce, the government places specific protection over the value of such information. And if they catch you copying, regardless of how easy it is to do so, you are punished.
Whether it's stopped isn't a huge issue to me. Say you have 5,000,000 torrents of a $20 product. The government/company or whoever "polices" it, by whatever method, is able to trace 100,000 of said downloads. As there was a violation of the law, a fine is issued, say $200 (what's the fine for petty theft on tangible goods?). $20,000,000 collected, government pays all administrative fees first, distributes majority of remaining money to the producer.
Note - I just thought of the process on the spot, so I have no idea on the feasibility or even on tracking methods, it's just kinda what came to me as making sense. And no, I don't support the $15,000-$150,000 lawsuits that arise from piracy that occur at the moment to the lucky fucker that gets singled out in the current scenario. Oh, and of course there would be the issue if someone had torrented hundreds if not thousands of items, but in that case I would think that the fine should be substantially larger, and something like a $10,000+ fine might be warranted, depending on the market price of the items.
|
On August 08 2012 09:05 xParadoxi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. Yeah, while the CEOs are getting massive bonuses during the layoffs.
I haven't heard anything about media CEO's getting massive bonuses during layouts, but okay. The point was, pirating tends to hurt the average worker a lot more than the media mogul or the artist.
|
On August 08 2012 08:33 Greggle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 05:45 ArchAngelSC wrote:On August 08 2012 05:43 Greggle wrote: Regardless of anyones opinions on demonoid, this blows =( How so? I can't see any downside to it I dare you to find one musical artist outside the top 40 list that loves record companies and is genuinely supportive of them. The fact is most of them don't give a shit about CD sales since they make pennies on the dollar and sustain themselves by touring (which is a much better way to spend your money, by the way). Bands don't even need labels to release their material anymore in this age. Look at Radiohead. Neither do comedians as a matter of fact, look at Louie CK! All labels have ever done is pressure bands into conforming into a top 40 radio friendly homogeneous blob of suck. Know how a band can succeed? It can distribute its music for free online or at a reasonable price ($5 for a CD is reasonable) which in turn promotes their merchandise and live shows. They can also license their music to commercials, TV shows and movies themselves. There isn't any need for a giant middleman, just a lawyer and an accountant tops. And movies... Jesus fuck could they waste any more money. Do we really think spending a $100,000,000 on some movies is worthwhile? We're throwing tens of millions at shit-eaters like Tom Cruise for no reason. $100,000 is more than enough for a few months of shooting. Hell, $100,000 is enough for a years work for 99% of professions. TV shows... where to start? First of all there is no way I'm picking up a new series by tuning in every day at 11am for a rerun whichever year they decide to start airing the series from the start again. There's also no way I wait a year after the finale of the newest season to pick up the DVD. And why can I only purchase these massive packages of channels? I don't want fucking Oxygen and Own, I just want CBS, ABC, NBC, TBS, HBO, AMC, a few movie channels and shitty GSN. I could seriously live with <10 channels with no problem, but I need to pay for 200 shitty music channels and BET to get what I want. Then Dish Network has a feud with AMC and I can't watch Breaking Bad and I miss out on LinSanity because of a dispute which I have nothing to do with and no say in.
One of the most true posts yet in this thread.
|
I think its funny how this is another version of people trying to keep other people down. Torrenting music just prevents the companies from making money, not the artist, artists make most of their money from their live shows. I like how the U.S. and other countries refuse to change how IP works and would rather go on another futile attempt to beat people who are masters of the Torrent game. No matter how many you block, there will be more, so so many more and they will all be popular at some point, a nice waste of money and time.
|
My favorite...
|
Damn...demonoid was one of my favorite trackers because it was one of the few pieces you could find rare OOP classical music recordings
|
loved demonoid, now i have to find a new site. It was really organized, and you could find way more than last week movies like in other trackers.
i accept sugestion to a site thats worth it.
|
aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there
|
I thought demonoid was hacked after googling an article about it as it shut down. whack, so what are some of your replacements? only thing I came up with were isohunter and torrentreactor... they are subpar
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? 1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these. 2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media. 3. These things probably came about because of piracy.
|
I don't really care too much about torrenting sites getting shut down. But if they touch Mediafire, I'll be upset. I use it to send my own music to my friends and various other files that are my own intellectual property. Just because you CAN send copyrighted material using this service doesn't mean the service should be shut down, imo. I mean, we CAN stab people with knives, but does that mean that kitchen knives should be made illegal? Unless they can prove that the service is specifically made for transferring illegal material, I don't think it's fair to shut it down.
|
Noooo i loved demonoid. Favorite torrent site by far.
|
|
The Usa is ruining my semi free entertainment life first quickflicksnow.com and now demonoid Im going to cry T_T
|
On August 08 2012 10:02 MichaelDonovan wrote: I don't really care too much about torrenting sites getting shut down. But if they touch Mediafire, I'll be upset. I use it to send my own music to my friends and various other files that are my own intellectual property. Just because you CAN send copyrighted material using this service doesn't mean the service should be shut down, imo. I mean, we CAN stab people with knives, but does that mean that kitchen knives should be made illegal? Unless they can prove that the service is specifically made for transferring illegal material, I don't think it's fair to shut it down.
It's if you're not taking active steps to prevent it. Look at Youtube, they immediately remove shit asap.
|
Does anyone know how piratebay is still alive and kicking?
|
On August 08 2012 09:51 Raysalis wrote: aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there yeah, i mainly used demonoid for... books ;_; sigh...
|
On August 08 2012 09:51 Raysalis wrote: aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there
lol same here. They had most of the super obscure stuff I was looking for that I couldn't find anywhere else.
|
Never used Demoniod, but I don't like the precident.
Going to throw my two cents in on the pirating debate since that's what this thread has already fallen to and I'm curious what the anit-pirating group has to say in response.
I pirate very rarely, mainly because I have Netflix and Steam. The only two instances that I've pirated things in the past year are Game of Thrones, and Crusader Kings II. Game of Thrones I dl because there simply isn't a way for me to buy it legally when it's released. I would gladdly pay for a service like HBOGO for the months GoT is out, but they don't allow that. I would gladdly pay for access to each individual episode, even at something crazy like $5 an episode, but they don't allow that. Instead, to watch and support this show I have to buy ~$120 worth of cable programming I don't want. This model doesn't work. So what I do is dl each episode, and then buy the Blu-Ray's when they come out to support the show. This is a failure of service, imo, as I'm a willing customer for their show, but they don't allow me to watch it without buying a bunch of crap I don't want at an insane price.
CKII I read about on TL, but it seemed like a pretty polarizing game (some people loved it, some didn't like it at all). At ~$30, this wasn't a game I was going to risk money on without playing first. So I dl'd it, played for a few hours as a demo, and decided that the game wasn't for me and deleted the files. Had I found the game enjoyable, I would have purchased it to support the company (like I did with Minecraft waaaaaay back in the day).
I'm curious on your arguments against these uses of torrents and hope it's more than just "It's stealing."
|
oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008. i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now
|
On August 08 2012 11:27 SausageLinks wrote: oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008. i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now
I've been using Demonoid for quite some time as well, but meh, lately I haven't really needed too. Either way, I'm sure there's other site's out there such as waffles. I wish I can get into waffles, if anybody can invite, I would love you.
|
I used it for the massive amount of anime subs it had that are not available anywhere in the US. If the US/RIAA/whatever wants me to stop using sites like that then they better start getting some more anime to the US officially.
|
On August 08 2012 10:56 TehPrime wrote: Does anyone know how piratebay is still alive and kicking?
because there are places in the world that arent in the united states of america?
On August 08 2012 11:27 SausageLinks wrote: oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008. i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now
isohunt.com until you find something better.
On August 08 2012 09:04 ampson wrote: If you're gonna pirate things you should at least feel bad about it.
well, thats just like...your opinion. man.
|
On August 08 2012 11:45 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 10:56 TehPrime wrote: Does anyone know how piratebay is still alive and kicking? because there are places in the world that arent in the united states of america? Ukraine isn't part of United States of America?
|
My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
|
imo, the government certainly knows shutting down torrent sites won't help the entertainment industry, or at least not as BIG as they claim it to be. They are doing it just to get more popularity with the media companies and some voters (who may not be as familiar with the matter)
|
On August 08 2012 11:33 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 11:27 SausageLinks wrote: oh dear, this is terrible news... been using Demonoid since like 2008. i wonder where I'm going to find my torrents now I've been using Demonoid for quite some time as well, but meh, lately I haven't really needed too. Either way, I'm sure there's other site's out there such as waffles. I wish I can get into waffles, if anybody can invite, I would love you.
Ditto.
|
On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here.
|
There is a lot of content on demonoid that cannot be found anywhere else on the internet, so this is a pretty big blow to everyone T.T; Not as bad as losing megaupload/sendspace obviously, but this is still pretty shitty
|
On August 08 2012 09:04 ampson wrote: If you're gonna pirate things you should at least feel bad about it.
Fuck no. Real pirates drank rum and fucked bitches with no remorse.
I usually torrent shows/movies if they're not available on Netflix or Hulu. I usually torrent music if I can't easily get it online. I usually torrent video games...pretty much never actually because of Steam. But lots of places that aren't North America don't have services like Netflix and Hulu so if they want to watch American television they're pretty much boned without torrents.
I guess the alternative is going to Wal-Mart or Target or Best Buy to purchase physical copies of media that I can't find online. But honestly if I can't find an album online it's unlikely I'll find it at a retailer and a $50 investment to watch the first season of a show I've never seen before is asking a lot of a consumer.
|
On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block.
This is very true.
Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right".
|
On August 08 2012 10:56 jodogohoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 09:51 Raysalis wrote: aww, Demonoid has some really nice e-book collections. Got some really rare and obscure science textbooks from there yeah, i mainly used demonoid for... books ;_; sigh...
Yeah, demonoid had tons of really obscure educational stuff on it that I am really going to miss. Science textbooks especially ;;
|
The movie and music industry is not and has not and will not be negatively impacted by piracy in any significant way. If you look it up, there has been quite a few studies on this and the movie/music industry has only been growing in profits the past decade. Piracy has also (likely) gone up in the past decade, as well. There is absolutely no correlation or even causation that piracy hurts the movie/music industry. The ONLY people who are saying piracy hurts them are the movie/music bigwigs and they say that while they're getting richer than ever.
Piracy does hurt artists, but the impact is minimal. If you actually take a look at contracts between say iTunes and recording companies and individual artists, you'll see that artists literally make pennies off of cd/song sales. They don't make jack shit because 90%+ of the money from record sales goes straight to the recording companies. Artists don't see shit from it. They make the vast majority money through tours and ticket sales from concerts and (if they're popular enough) endorsements and other such deals. Either that, or they make money from selling their cds individually at reasonable prices. Not fucking $0.99~$1.29 for a single song.
TV show piracy has been reduced because of reliable, reasonable services such as Hulu (plus) and Netflix. In this day and age, it is hard for people to be able to tune in exactly at the right time to watch a show. An alternate, reasonable service lets people watch shows on their own time. Netflix is what? $8 a month for unlimited streaming? That's fucking amazing. I'd rather pay that and be able to watch the stuff I like, than have to pay exorbitant prices of like fucking $80 a month for 100 channels, 90 of which I don't give a shit about, and even then I'd probably only watch like...an hour a day tops.
Movies are definitely pirated a lot, but there hasn't been a single study not sponsored by the MPAA that definitively shows that piracy is hurting the industry. Movie profits are at an all time high and they're still rising. Vast majority of movie profits come from licensing to theaters and the crazy ticket prices. Not to mention the most popular movies also make the studios a crapton of money from the franchise alone.
Games. Games are almost always released at $60+ nowadays. That's in no ways cheap. People are more than willing to pay for games, but if they're reasonably affordable. Why else do you think so many games are f2p nowadays? Because people are more than willing to shell out some cash so long as they enjoy the game. Why else are Steam sales so fucking popular? Because they sell quality product at reasonable prices. I'm willing to bet Steam rakes in a FUCKTON of money every summer from the 1 month of Steam sales alone despite slashing prices upwards 75%.
Summary and TLDR? Piracy is wrong in that you should definitely support the people putting their hard work into making the product. But thing biggest drive behind piracy isn't so much that people hate the artists and makers of the end product, but more because the industry middleman is driving up prices to ridiculous heights. If they offer their product at a reasonable price with relative ease of access, people have 0 problem throwing money at them. Just look at the success of Netflix and Steam.
|
On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". This is true, but it's also absolute bullshit in that no one is losing jobs due to piracy. The movie/music industry has been growing for the past decade, not shrinking despite all the accusations and apparent rise in piracy.
Piracy is morally wrong, but to say people are losing jobs over it is simply false.
|
On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right".
Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?
Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare.
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.
How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie?
If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs.
|
On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them?
It does hurt profits, but it cannot be stopped. It's just not very significant compared to all the other sources of revenue.
|
I was so pissed when I heard about this a couple days ago... I relied on that site for my TV shows!!
|
On August 08 2012 10:01 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? 1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these. 2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media. 3. These things probably came about because of piracy. Mostly in the US where Legal "cheap" and convenient sources are plentiful and the US has never quite had the piracy rates of south east asia or russia, or even most of europe to begin with.
|
On August 08 2012 12:31 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 10:01 Lightwip wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? 1. Piracy gets you a lot you can't get from these. 2. Piracy is declining because of these new sources for media. 3. These things probably came about because of piracy. Mostly in the US where Legal "cheap" and convenient sources are plentiful and the US has never quite had the piracy rates of south east asia or russia, or even most of europe to begin with.
Might have something to do with the fact that it's easier (read: possible) to buy a $50 game/movie/album with a $2500/month salary than a $40 game/movie/album with a $250/month salary...
|
On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here.
Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you?
I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that.
|
damn. guess i'll have to actually buy shit now.
LOL YA RITE
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.
Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal.
|
to quote phillip roth:
"america is going fascist"
torrents for me have always been about the spread of information and art for free. it is honestly a shame that my government is attacking such a thing. next thing we should do is ban libraries, god knows what we would do if we could read a book for free.
|
On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them? Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare.
When you go to your friends house to play a video game with him you are playing it for free. Without giving the developer who made it any money.
I think that in some cases piracy can actually help the entertainment industry. For example, in lots of countries there are services that are unavailable to them (like Netflix) or entire television shows or films unavailable to them. Piracy eliminates that problem. And, in fact, piracy likely leads to sales by consumers that would never have been interested in a television show or a movie or a band before.
Going back to the example of a lent DVD, you might not have had any interest in it or any plans to purchase it. But upon watching it you really enjoyed it and you go out and buy it. Or after playing a game at a friend's house you go out and buy said game. This was basically my childhood. And there are countless things I wasn't interested in that I torrented and ended up purchasing later.
As I said earlier, I don't pirate that often. Pretty much only if I can't easily access media through legal means. I think that the entertainment industry should continue to expand on things like Hulu into new regions instead of throwing their money into a giant pit to lobby against piracy.
|
On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal.
uploaded it to*
Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison.
|
On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that.
Wow you really are an entitled person.
There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie.
|
While I am in favor of free file and media sharing and am pro free art, I love the new media approach, I think that companies should continue to pursue and increase alternatives to traditional media like Hulu and Grooveshark and Spotify. While maybe not as profitable as old models, it gives the consumer who would otherwise be reduced to piracy a compromise. Because of sources like these, my own pirating was reduced to very little, as it was even more convenient than pirating, even with 4 ad breaks of 2 ads per episode. The problem was when, just as they are doing now with Demonoid, they start abusing copyright law to crack down, and then even great services like the old Hulu become trash because certain companies don't want to buy into these new marketing techniques, or want to severely limit the content they make available on the site.
|
It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
|
On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote: It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
I will acknowledge that it is morally wrong. But I do not care. Because on the scale of morally wrong I think that piracy is about even to breaking the speed limit.
|
On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office.
Honestly, I only pirate when I can't find legal means to get something I like. For example, I pirated some TV shows because they weren't available on Hulu or my Netflix subscription. I don't have cable because it's ridiculously expensive where I live and 90%+ of what you're paying for you don't want/won't use. My first course of action was to check the network's website. No good. Then I check Amazon and even fucking iTunes store. They have it, except you can only play it on their players. No problem, except I need captions since I'm hard of hearing. No captions. Well fuck.
|
On August 08 2012 12:55 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal. uploaded it to* Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison.
Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?
|
On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote: It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile.
I've already stated that I pirate when something I want to support gives me no simple way to do it. IE: HBO forcing me to buy ~$120 worth of cable to watch one show. I would love to be able to buy the episodes as they come out, or purchase a subscription to just HBOGO (which will hopefully be allowed before S3 comes out) but they don't give me those option. I'm excited about their product, I want to watch it when it comes out, I WANT to be a paying customer but they give me no viable options to do it. So I pirate it and 10 months later I buy the blu-ray box set to support the show.
|
On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office.
Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made.
What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made?
|
On August 08 2012 13:05 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:57 ampson wrote: It'd be nice if the people who pirate would at least acknowledge that it is morally wrong, but they ignore that because they don't want to pay for things. Trying to justify taking something for free that someone else made to sell for profit is just kind of futile. I've already stated that I pirate when something I want to support gives me no simple way to do it. IE: HBO forcing me to buy ~$120 worth of cable to watch one show. I would love to be able to buy the episodes as they come out, or purchase a subscription to just HBOGO (which will hopefully be allowed before S3 comes out) but they don't give me those option. I'm excited about their product, I want to watch it when it comes out, I WANT to be a paying customer but they give me no viable options to do it. So I pirate it and 10 months later I buy the blu-ray box set to support the show.
Your dedication to supporting the content producers is admirable.
I fear that most pirates do not share your honesty.
|
On August 08 2012 12:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them? Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare. When you go to your friends house to play a video game with him you are playing it for free. Without giving the developer who made it any money. I think that in some cases piracy can actually help the entertainment industry. For example, in lots of countries there are services that are unavailable to them (like Netflix) or entire television shows or films unavailable to them. Piracy eliminates that problem. And, in fact, piracy likely leads to sales by consumers that would never have been interested in a television show or a movie or a band before. Going back to the example of a lent DVD, you might not have had any interest in it or any plans to purchase it. But upon watching it you really enjoyed it and you go out and buy it. Or after playing a game at a friend's house you go out and buy said game. This was basically my childhood. And there are countless things I wasn't interested in that I torrented and ended up purchasing later. As I said earlier, I don't pirate that often. Pretty much only if I can't easily access media through legal means. I think that the entertainment industry should continue to expand on things like Hulu into new regions instead of throwing their money into a giant pit to lobby against piracy. Yes when you go to your friends house you can play a game for free, but it's really not the same thing (I guess the whole DVD camparison isn't either). When you go to your friend's house, you don't possess the actual game. You are borrowing for a very short while it, and piracy is not borrowing. It is copying.
Sure piracy can be good. But if the producer of content doesn't approve of piracy of his or her products, then it's wrong (and illegal) to pirate that person's material. If material is seriously unavailable, as in, you can't buy it, you can't watch it on the web, and you can't rent it, then I guess piracy isn't hurting anyone, but the vast majority of pirated content surely isn't pirated under those circumstances.
As for buying something after pirating it, I would say that this is a frequently touted statement, but in all honesty do you think this is common? If someone is willing to pirate content, then why would they pay for something that they already have because they liked it? I could see this happening to access multiplayer features, but this can't be common.
|
On August 08 2012 13:03 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:55 rd wrote:On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal. uploaded it to* Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison. Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?
Maybe the video rental people have some sort of a special license that lets them lend out the movies?
|
|
I only download anime and manga anyway.
Meh. :[
|
On August 08 2012 12:55 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. Wow you really are an entitled person. There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie.
You're being disengenuous when you use the word charging. Something a bit stronger is in order. Let's go with raking over the coals. 12 dollar movie tickets are profiteering not compensating, and that's not even considering their projected profits on the same product by repackaging it into a dvd or digital copy. No other discussion neccessary.
Yes, I buy sandwiches for money. Why don't I have a problem with that? Because there is always a cheaper and cheaper alternative based on quality. The exorbitant sandwich shops don't get my business unless I think they warrant it based on something unique, and they don't run inexpensive alternatives out of town. But I really don't have alternatives when it comes to media do I?
The media holding companies have created a system such that in order to sell your 'sandwich' (record), the only way is to use their system, which does, in fact, extort consumers. There is no cheaper alternative without going 'indy', which goes back to the starving artists example. There is no moderate system for moderate profits and moderate compensation....it's all taken to the extremes because of corporate greed.
There are a multitude of problems in your analogy with comparing sandwiches and songs. One fills a basic human need of hunger, and the other fills just a 'want' of entertainment. I admit that it is a 'take it or leave it' scenario for whether or not I want to buy it, but it shouldn't be, and if piracy poses a threat demands change to the profiteering than I support it. Also, you can't share a sandwich without reducing your own serving size like you can with a movie, a comparison can't be made between the products, so sandwich shops don't have a problem with so called 'theft' of sharing. Also, you're not addressing the question of whether art is just a product like a sandwich, or maybe something deeper like a shared expression of humanity, which time after time gains more mass appeal when it is most accessible.
Turning art into a business is lucrative for businessmen. And they share that wealth with a select few to keep the product (creative content) machine generating content (+ crazy high profits). Appealing to feelings of sympathy for the lot worker in Hollywood is ignoring the root of the problem. If people are freely sharing something because they can't afford to buy it, and ridiculous profits aren't being made, then yes, the joe schmoe is the first one hit, but honestly maybe they should have never been employed in the first place if the movie needs to sell for 12bucks a seat and 25bucks a dvd in order to justify his employment...changes would be made to make it more affordable if more people pirated because it is out of reach, that's the nature of the free market.....if it was this unreasonably priced because of that guy, then he needs to go, in order to make the project more accessible. But we all know it's not the reason.
|
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
On August 08 2012 13:12 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:54 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:23 Chocolate wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. What about the people who were going to buy the DVD, but then decide not to because their friend, who has unlimited copies of every DVD ever, offered to lend it to them? Personally, I take issue with piracy because you are using a product (game, song, book, etc.) for free, although the creator would not like you to. Sure, the publishing company/record company/steam is going to take their cut, but if the creator didn't want the consumer to use those, they wouldn't have made deals with them in the first place. Validating piracy because they take their cut is like not paying taxes because you dislike the principle of welfare. When you go to your friends house to play a video game with him you are playing it for free. Without giving the developer who made it any money. I think that in some cases piracy can actually help the entertainment industry. For example, in lots of countries there are services that are unavailable to them (like Netflix) or entire television shows or films unavailable to them. Piracy eliminates that problem. And, in fact, piracy likely leads to sales by consumers that would never have been interested in a television show or a movie or a band before. Going back to the example of a lent DVD, you might not have had any interest in it or any plans to purchase it. But upon watching it you really enjoyed it and you go out and buy it. Or after playing a game at a friend's house you go out and buy said game. This was basically my childhood. And there are countless things I wasn't interested in that I torrented and ended up purchasing later. As I said earlier, I don't pirate that often. Pretty much only if I can't easily access media through legal means. I think that the entertainment industry should continue to expand on things like Hulu into new regions instead of throwing their money into a giant pit to lobby against piracy. Yes when you go to your friends house you can play a game for free, but it's really not the same thing (I guess the whole DVD camparison isn't either). When you go to your friend's house, you don't possess the actual game. You are borrowing for a very short while it, and piracy is not borrowing. It is copying. Sure piracy can be good. But if the producer of content doesn't approve of piracy of his or her products, then it's wrong (and illegal) to pirate that person's material. If material is seriously unavailable, as in, you can't buy it, you can't watch it on the web, and you can't rent it, then I guess piracy isn't hurting anyone, but the vast majority of pirated content surely isn't pirated under those circumstances. As for buying something after pirating it, I would say that this is a frequently touted statement, but in all honesty do you think this is common? If someone is willing to pirate content, then why would they pay for something that they already have because they liked it? I could see this happening to access multiplayer features, but this can't be common.
I will only respond to the bolded part and your final paragraph. In response to your bolded part, go look at piracy rates. They are not very high in the US. The majority of piracy happens in areas where lots of media is not available. I'd say that at least half of piracy is probably being done by people who don't have access to the media they're pirating anyways.
As for the final paragraph, yes, I believe that most pirates in the US do support content providers with their wallet. The ones who don't are typically people who can't afford to purchase what they're pirating anyway. Source: movie theaters are constantly crowded, Kanye West is a millionaire, and video games are sure as hell not hurting.
edit: I believe that people who are firmly against piracy have this concept of people who pirate media as people who just want everything for free. I believe that those people are in the minority and are so cheap they probably wouldn't pay for films/music/games if piracy didn't exist.
|
The government might be led by some stupid people. But their decision to shut down Demonoid was far from a simple and quick decision. Every action taken in politics gets so scrutenized down to the last detail, that nothing much ever gets done.
Most likely, media corporations got on the government's ass to do something about all the copyright infringements. So the government was forced to deliver SOMETHING to them, since everything political nowadays is largely funded by media corporations, etc.
Just another instance of capitalism in effect. Corporations who own the copyrights can basically force government to take action against infringement, no matter how futile the action really is.
|
i downloaded something like 2TB in the last two months but I still buy music and blu rays for stuff that I like, e.g. games of throne seasons.
My itune receipts totaled like $400 in 2011-2012
Piracy gave me choice, half the shows that i like and downloaded I can't even buy from the local stores.
|
I would love to support the content producers in a more direct way. Without supporting an elite extravagant lifestyle for the truly 'entitled' (as peer to peer users are labeled). This is why I love to support sites such as Hulu and Spotify, and I always buy records or movies that I download if I can find a deal on them and they're good, or in some cases I'll reluctantly pay retail if they're really really good... even though I may be in the minority on this. I try my best in the case of music to order directly from the artist as twofold, the support for them is much greater, and the support for the greedy handlers is less. The problem is the greedy corporations set the price point in the classic sales model and won't budge, and are reluctant to embrace new less profitable models and compromise with sites like Hulu (severely limit content [clips only sometimes] or refuse to partner). It's a market of extremes where there is no moderate vision for accessibility, it's all about dat money.
|
The issue is that the music and movie industries are trying to cling onto their old ways of business that are lucrative top end for the big fat cats up there. People will continue to pirate because they find it ridiculous to pay the prices that they are when other forms of media (gaming in particular, a more interactive type of media) have demonstrated different types of payment (F2P, Trials, etc. etc.) and have been quite successful. League of Legends of course is the poster child of a non-corporate type of payment structure; the customer only pays for what he really wants, not all the extraneous marked up bullshit.
|
On August 08 2012 13:03 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:55 rd wrote:On August 08 2012 12:48 NEOtheONE wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. Quoted for truth. Last I checked you can still record live TV and that's not illegal, you can lend it to a friend, and that's not illegal, your friend can watch it and that's not illegal, but because you downloaded it from some random third party instead of borrowing it from a friend, it suddenly becomes illegal. uploaded it to* Theres a difference between lending it to one friend, and uploading it to a website to distribute it to (potentially) millions of people. It's not really a valid comparison. Okay then why are video rentals legal? It's lending copies of a product for their own profit to millions of people everywhere. So it's okay for a company to buy a product in bulk and charge a fee to rent it out to people (even in digital download format), but it's not okay for a site to allow people to download the same product for free even if the people who are running/uploading to the site actually paid for a copy or the original source material?
Are you actually going to try and debate this? First of all, I pointed out the invalidity of the comparison I quoted. You jump inbetween and toss out another comparison that has little to do with my point. Second of all, video/game rental stores pay large flat fees to the publisher for renting rights. The publishers gave them permission in exchange for money. So yeah, it's okay for a company to go to the publisher and pay them for the right to do it.
On August 08 2012 13:12 Divergence wrote: Maybe the video rental people have some sort of a special license that lets them lend out the movies?
Sort of. Theres multiple models, but in the specific case of video rentals, they buy copies of DVD's and pay a larger flat price than normal retail per copy for the right to rent that copy indefinitely.
|
On August 08 2012 13:23 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:55 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. Wow you really are an entitled person. There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie. You're being disengenuous when you use the word charging. Something a bit stronger is in order. Let's go with raking over the coals. 12 dollar movie tickets are profiteering not compensating, and that's not even considering their projected profits on the same product by repackaging it into a dvd or digital copy. No other discussion neccessary. Yes, I buy sandwiches for money. Why don't I have a problem with that? Because there is always a cheaper and cheaper alternative based on quality. The exorbitant sandwich shops don't get my business unless I think they warrant it based on something unique, and they don't run inexpensive alternatives out of town. But I really don't have alternatives when it comes to media do I? The media holding companies have created a system such that in order to sell your 'sandwich' (record), the only way is to use their system, which does, in fact, extort consumers. There is no cheaper alternative without going 'indy', which goes back to the starving artists example. There is no moderate system for moderate profits and moderate compensation....it's all taken to the extremes because of corporate greed. There are a multitude of problems in your analogy with comparing sandwiches and songs. One fills a basic human need of hunger, and the other fills just a 'want' of entertainment. I admit that it is a 'take it or leave it' scenario for whether or not I want to buy it, but it shouldn't be, and if piracy poses a threat demands change to the profiteering than I support it. Also, you can't share a sandwich without reducing your own serving size like you can with a movie, a comparison can't be made between the products, so sandwich shops don't have a problem with so called 'theft' of sharing. Also, you're not addressing the question of whether art is just a product like a sandwich, or maybe something deeper like a shared expression of humanity, which time after time gains more mass appeal when it is most accessible. Turning art into a business is lucrative for businessmen. And they share that wealth with a select few to keep the product (creative content) machine generating content (+ crazy high profits). Appealing to feelings of sympathy for the lot worker in Hollywood is ignoring the root of the problem. If people are freely sharing something because they can't afford to buy it, and ridiculous profits aren't being made, then yes, the joe schmoe is the first one hit, but honestly maybe they should have never been employed in the first place if the movie needs to sell for 12bucks a seat and 25bucks a dvd in order to justify his employment...changes would be made to make it more affordable if more people pirated because it is out of reach, that's the nature of the free market.....if it was this unreasonably priced because of that guy, then he needs to go, in order to make the project more accessible. But we all know it's not the reason.
You have alternatives for media. Netflix is inexpensive and it may not have what you want but it is nevertheless an alternative.
If you believe people should not be allowed to profit off of art then you are entitled to that opinion, but just know that such a rule will undoubtedly have an effect on the quantity and quality of work produced (and I expect this effect to be negative).
I would respond in greater detail but I am on my mobile.
|
This is the end of the world!
|
On August 08 2012 13:56 yOngKIN wrote: This is the end of the world!
are you actually from North Korea? ^^ Because I doubt this is the end of the world for you lol
|
On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place.
This is going on the massively fallacious assessment considering I'd say a majority of people who have pirated something would have paid for many of the items otherwise, if not at a later time at a discounted price.
|
On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made? Most network TV shows are funded by advertisements. Some are funded in other ways like HBO shows.
I don't know the specifics, but generally, ad time on air is extremely expensive so networks make a TON of money from it. They also make a lot of money in other ways such as through deals with cable companies. Also, I don't have numbers on hand, but I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of ad revenue for TV shows come from prime time. Which tends to be news, sports, or extremely high popularity shows like CSI. Prime time programming is DVR'd and such, but generally, due to the time slot, it's easy for a lot of people to tune in and watch live.
That being said, even if people watching programs live decreases significantly, networks still gauge popularity of their shows and gain ad revenue in other ways. Hulu and Netflix for example pay a good chunk of money to networks in order to stream their shows online. They, in turn, recoup their costs via online ads. Even TV show ratings like Nielson aren't purely based on live viewers anymore. They definitely factor in the amount of online viewers, as well. In general, if a show has a high Nielson rating, it generates high amounts of ad revenue in some way shape or form.
|
On August 08 2012 13:47 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:23 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:55 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. Wow you really are an entitled person. There is another choice, as with everything else, you don't buy it if you can't afford it. Someone is not extorting you because they are charging you for a sandwich and by the same reasoning they are not extorting you by charging you for a movie. You're being disengenuous when you use the word charging. Something a bit stronger is in order. Let's go with raking over the coals. 12 dollar movie tickets are profiteering not compensating, and that's not even considering their projected profits on the same product by repackaging it into a dvd or digital copy. No other discussion neccessary. Yes, I buy sandwiches for money. Why don't I have a problem with that? Because there is always a cheaper and cheaper alternative based on quality. The exorbitant sandwich shops don't get my business unless I think they warrant it based on something unique, and they don't run inexpensive alternatives out of town. But I really don't have alternatives when it comes to media do I? The media holding companies have created a system such that in order to sell your 'sandwich' (record), the only way is to use their system, which does, in fact, extort consumers. There is no cheaper alternative without going 'indy', which goes back to the starving artists example. There is no moderate system for moderate profits and moderate compensation....it's all taken to the extremes because of corporate greed. There are a multitude of problems in your analogy with comparing sandwiches and songs. One fills a basic human need of hunger, and the other fills just a 'want' of entertainment. I admit that it is a 'take it or leave it' scenario for whether or not I want to buy it, but it shouldn't be, and if piracy poses a threat demands change to the profiteering than I support it. Also, you can't share a sandwich without reducing your own serving size like you can with a movie, a comparison can't be made between the products, so sandwich shops don't have a problem with so called 'theft' of sharing. Also, you're not addressing the question of whether art is just a product like a sandwich, or maybe something deeper like a shared expression of humanity, which time after time gains more mass appeal when it is most accessible. Turning art into a business is lucrative for businessmen. And they share that wealth with a select few to keep the product (creative content) machine generating content (+ crazy high profits). Appealing to feelings of sympathy for the lot worker in Hollywood is ignoring the root of the problem. If people are freely sharing something because they can't afford to buy it, and ridiculous profits aren't being made, then yes, the joe schmoe is the first one hit, but honestly maybe they should have never been employed in the first place if the movie needs to sell for 12bucks a seat and 25bucks a dvd in order to justify his employment...changes would be made to make it more affordable if more people pirated because it is out of reach, that's the nature of the free market.....if it was this unreasonably priced because of that guy, then he needs to go, in order to make the project more accessible. But we all know it's not the reason. You have alternatives for media. Netflix is inexpensive and it may not have what you want but it is nevertheless an alternative. If you believe people should not be allowed to profit off of art then you are entitled to that opinion, but just know that such a rule will undoubtedly have an effect on the quantity and quality of work produced (and I expect this effect to be negative). I would respond in greater detail but I am on my mobile.
That's ok. Your point is still received. And I respect it and see it.
But we don't agree on how much letting piracy continue unhindered would really harm the art industry. I would make the case that the free market principles would find a way to produce the same quality at lower costs and lower profits, in order to maintain viewership. And that is if piracy even affected profits significantly which they don't. Assertions that piracy laws and raids are justified are usually just propaganda for greed to continue to ever increase profits, or by governement agendas in the name of copyright law enforcement to further overturn privacy laws, to allow them to track your every move online, a far greater potential threat than the enforcement of greed.
EDIT: And I love things like Netflix. What I don't love is how limited they are, which is a sort of appeasement instead of a real solution. If services like Netflix and Hulu were really as good as they used to be/should be and companies didn't quit backing off of them because of lower profits and getting greedy by only offering traditional media for certain content, I would be far less likely to pirate. In fact, my pirating was reduced to almost nill back in the glory days of Netflix and Hulu a few years ago, just as my music pirating is almost nill now due to Internet Radio, Spotify, etc.
|
On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made?
HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world.
Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents?
I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own.
If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads.
If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.
|
On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made? HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world. Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents? I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own. If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads. If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.
Game of Thrones is a great example in the TV episode format for video production, that was made into an ultrasuccessful phenomenon by free media sharing. God Bless the guy at HBO who leaked them before they aired on HBO, it made the obsession even greater for me.
|
On August 08 2012 14:10 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:09 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 13:03 Ryuu314 wrote:On August 08 2012 12:26 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 12:19 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 12:14 Divergence wrote:On August 08 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Try to remember that the average worker in Corporate America is not a CEO, and when profits slip it's their jobs and wages that go to the chopping block. This is very true. Piracy will hurt the low-level guys first and the fat cats last, but most pirates don't give a shit because they don't have morals. But it is amusing how they try to defend what they're doing as "right". Piracy "hurts" no one. It hurts theoretical profits but there is no loss of goods from the media provider. It's literally no different than your friend lending you a DVD and letting you watch it. You were never going to buy that DVD yet you got to watch it for free. It's not like the movie company that made the DVD can claim that you caused them to lose revenue because you were never going to pay for their film in the first place. How can you say you were never going to pay for the movie? If everyone pirated movies there is no way the studio could cover their costs. This isn't exactly true. Studios cover the costs for making movies via ticket sales in the box office. Every successful movie will always cover the cost of making the movie and then some purely from the box office. Well that's quite good to hear actually (assuming it's true). As long as illegal pirate theatres don't become widespread then I can feel confident that high quality movies will continue to be made. What about TV shows though? Eventually people will stop subscribing to cable stations and advertisers will realise that their ads are not being seen due to everyone having a DVR. Then who will pay for the TV shows to be made? HBO makes money hand over fist, and their shows are among the most pirated in the world. Do you think for one second that Game of Thrones would be as big as it is without piracy? Do you think they'd sell as many DVD box sets if people who aren't HBO subscribers weren't familiar with the show thanks to torrents? I own a crapton of TV shows on DVD. Good ones, that I want to support and keep for my own. If you want to stop me torrenting TV shows, get rid of region blocking and let me watch them on ABC/CBS/Hulu/whatever, and show me some ads. If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century.
God yes. It annoys me to no end that there's region blocking on US stream sites. The fact that there's no possible way (afaik) to even watch game of thrones here until months later on public (free) Swedish television. There's literally no option unless you want to watch it months later, at a specific time and day, Swedish subtitles and all that shit. Why does it have to be so goddamn hard to watch US TV series without using piracy? If they spent half the money they spend bribing governments on making streams available everywhere they'd profit a lot more I'd imagine. In Sweden it was also like blatantly obvious bribing going on in the piratebay case. The judge was a high up member of the 'Anti piracy bureau', and when he was the replaced the next judge was a member as well. There are loads of those examples. They could just make the pilot aired for free on their stream net work so you get a feel for the show, and then you buy episodes or seasons so you can watch them on the stream / downloading site when it's aired. I'd pay for that.
It's also interesting how very few games nowdays have demos (is that what it's called in English? The discs released for free where you can try out the first mission or so for free before you buy the game) which also makes me pirate games to actually see if it's worth buying. I know a lot of people who do the same. I mean a user of add block is just as bad as a downloader. A person who downloads a CD and a person who watches it for free on youtube but uses add block to skip commercials are equal criminals, but so far I've heard no witch hunt after add blockers on youtube. I dunno, it all just seems so unreasonable.
|
Damn, I was hoping it would go back up but it looks like GG now. Although I don't torrent much, I used Demonoid as my main tracker =|. Hopefully the US govt doesn't do anything to it's users now that they have all the data? Not sure what they can do and I'm doubting they'll do anything but it still sucks
|
Yea, one of my friends basically pirates games off piratebay. If he likes it he'll buy the game. If he doesn't, he'll usually stop playing like 2 hours in and never touch it again.
|
I've used demonoid quite a bit. This kinda sucks now.. :/
|
As long as I can keep downloading stuff that isn't even obtainable in a legal way then I'm fine. If I can buy something, I do (piracy with the intent of getting something for free is bad), if I can't, I pirate.
Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) If you're in the US, yes. I have to wait years to watch series from the US in a legal way. No thanks.
If you expect me to wait a year or more and watch them on local TV at a specific time on a specific day, enjoy pretending you're still in the 20th century. Well said.
|
I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on.
|
On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up...
|
Im one of those rare people that are only able to watch something once and then not give a damn about it ever again. Quite possibly because I have stupid recall ability. But if there was a site out there that let me download say...anything for $1 or $2 and only let me play it a max of 2-3 times before renewal. I would be all over that. But as it is. things cost alot and torrents are just far to easily accessible.
edit- also on torrents being accessible. Usually in Australia most things can be delayed months unless its something super popular. But even then the chance of it being on a pay service first is highly likely.
|
Even shutting down Megaupload didn't stop me.
|
On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that.
I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment.
|
I think this community of internet super users is no place to gauge proper reactions to media sharing sites getting shut down.
That said I think this community of internet super users is the perfect place to gauge reactions to media sharing sites getting shut down. ;D
|
On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up...
yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments.
|
There's a difference between pirating because you have no other realistic means and pirating because you don't want to pay. The problem is that there's no way to distinguish would be customers and people who just want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
On August 08 2012 16:17 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment.
Right but they know they can't sell it at that pricepoint without blowback. Based on their research they have priced it at the near perfect point between loss of significant profits due to refusal and blowback, to the point far less profit of reasonably and respectfully priced entertainment, due to complacency and convenience and miraculously effective marketing. What I purport is changing the game by more people pirating such that it sends a message of refusal to accept the status quo.. to media conglomerates.
|
On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments.
Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
|
On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
Way to label entire generations based on the few. My dad is 57 and uses the Pirate Bay regularly, he recognizes the value of art, but only pays for it if it is worth it. He doesn't subscribe to the 'commit to buy' approach with no exchanges or refunds. If you can't determine if art or media is satisfactory before you pay for it, then isn't it a risk on investment?
|
On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is.
If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up.
If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash.
|
On August 08 2012 16:24 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment. Right but they know they can't sell it at that pricepoint without blowback. Based on their research they have priced it at the near perfect point between loss of significant profits due to refusal and blowback, to the point far less profit of reasonably and respectfully priced entertainment, due to complacency and convenience and miraculously effective marketing. What I purport is changing the game by more people pirating such that it sends a message of refusal to accept the status quo.. to media conglomerates.
You can tell them that a high price point is unacceptable by simply not buying the game. When you torrent the game, you have committed a crime. Voting with your wallet is different from pirating.
|
On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Long live magnet links.
|
I could have lived without torrenting music/TV-shows/movies, but Demonoid had my audiobooks... Sad sad panda
|
Kat.ph
(kick ass torrents) is also a great site, I actually use this more than pirate bay
as for demonoid, good bye sweet prince ): had 700+ gigs down/upped there
|
On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash.
Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done.
|
Trying to kill torrent sites will never work, probably 3 pop up for every 1 you "block"
Even the blocked ones are still accessible with a workaround :\
|
On August 08 2012 16:41 Nekovivie wrote: Trying to kill torrent sites will never work, probably 3 pop up for every 1 you "block"
Even the blocked ones are still accessible with a workaround :\
while this may be true; i still fail to understand why people get upset when they do.
|
On August 08 2012 16:32 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:24 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 16:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 12:42 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 12:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 08 2012 11:57 StarStrider wrote: My two cents on the pirating debate: I'm of the opinion that if the art is good enough, the revenue will follow, even if you use a pay-what-you-want model. Forcing people to pay a premium exorbitant price for art is the true robbery. I don't believe art should be free for the sake of being art, but true artists will strive to make it accessible to all, as that is the true purpose: enjoyment by the most number that can appreciate it. If it is out of reach of lower incomes, it simply won't be purchased...then what was the point to begin with? If you say profits, I don't believe you have a true appreciation for art. Art producers should strive to make their work available and free as possible while still able to fund the project and future projects. Forcing people to pay exorbitant prices for pure shit, and also exorbitant prices for gems, cheapens the intrinsic value of art of that particular genre, and also makes investing in a piece of art risky since you cannot 'return' it once you have it. Letting people decide what they think it is worth, even if there will be people that abuse that model, is still the best way to respect art. I am of the opinion that any other argument is just supporting extortive corporatism and consumerism, devaluing the art and the customer, and making something that should reflect the creativity and fluidity displayed by the art itself into something systematic and dull. Artists shouldn't have to starve, but it speaks to the fact that our art distribution system is fucked up that when you 'make it', as an artist, you are suddenly in the elite income bracket, and a hummer limousine with hot tub, and private learjet are suddenly nothing to you.
There is no robbery involved and even as an expression that's silly. If you don't want to want to pay for it, then don't pay for it? No one is forcing anything here. Extortion is a form of robbery though, but I didn't intend on that figure of speech being taken literally, just saying that if either side is more like stealing, it would be the corporations charging a flat 25$ for a DVD and 80$ for a game... This price model goes WAAYY beyond just compensation for services rendered, and into the realm of profiteering. I am being forced to pay these prices for mainstream art as there is no other choice for me.. If I could pay what I want, I would pay for it based on the quality or enjoyment I would expect out of it. As is, the only alternative to paying exorbitant prices is to pirate it. You cannot honestly argue that the net worth of these artists and companies reflects 'fair' pricing can you? I like the analogy of the friend letting his buddy borrow a DVD. I guess we should prosecute them by record company standards. How is it different? And how would they see an increase in profits if we did prosecute them? If anything, encouraging sharing is free advertising... if the content is good enough to make a new fan consider buying it, who otherwise would never consider spending on their 'product', I think it is a great thing. The wise companies are the ones who respect their art and the art appreciaters by making it as available as possible, then the profits come after that. I think it's up to a business to price their own product however they want, and I don't see an issue if games were $100 each and DVDs were $50. You aren't entitled to media entertainment. Right but they know they can't sell it at that pricepoint without blowback. Based on their research they have priced it at the near perfect point between loss of significant profits due to refusal and blowback, to the point far less profit of reasonably and respectfully priced entertainment, due to complacency and convenience and miraculously effective marketing. What I purport is changing the game by more people pirating such that it sends a message of refusal to accept the status quo.. to media conglomerates. You can tell them that a high price point is unacceptable by simply not buying the game. When you torrent the game, you have committed a crime. Voting with your wallet is different from pirating.
No, because I want to play it, or want to at least try it, but I don't want to buy an unrefundable game without knowing if I like it. Bringing morality or legality into it does nothing to talk about 'why we pirate' and trying to curtail it, it only makes you look judgemental. Let's talk about fixing the problem, which is copyright laws and lack of demos, lack of compromise on sites like Hulu and Grooveshark, or lack of recognition of the validity of the pay-what-you-like model. If you support laws that further corporate greed like copyright laws that call on government to raid servers, you support corporate lobbyist that paid governments off to buy powers to do so. Are you proud of supporting this right to curtail freedom of information in the name of greed?
|
Havent used demoniod in ages, but I had an account and thought the site was pretty good. Checked it this morning and was greeted with an error, but I didnt think much of it. Well that kind of sucks. I hope they dont go for other file hosting sites too.
|
Heh, I don't really use Demonoid anyway. But if they start to go after private torrents, I'm gonna be a sad panda.
|
On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done.
It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard?
|
On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done.
You're on a website about professional video games. Most people in their early twenties don't even know how to torrent.
|
On August 08 2012 16:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. You're on a website about professional video games. Most people in their early twenties don't even know how to torrent.
that's a very bold statement.
|
On August 08 2012 16:46 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard? So basically you're angry because the government shut down a service that allowed you to illegally download (read: steal) stuff? Talk about being a hypocrite.
|
I don't get what the big deal is in this thread, lol.
People trying to justify pirating copyrighted games, movies, and music is just hilarious. We're all law breakers and thieves. Get over it. You're not winning yourself any points by being defensive about it.
|
On August 08 2012 17:49 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:54 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. You're on a website about professional video games. Most people in their early twenties don't even know how to torrent. that's a very bold statement.
In America at least it's pretty damn true.
|
On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance...
|
On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance...
as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing.
edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports"
|
On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports"
As I've already said, I'd love to pay for and support Game of Thrones when each new season comes out. However, the only option they give me to do such is to purchase cable, and then a special bundle on top of that coming out to around ~$120 a month... just to watch one show. If they sold access to just HBOGO, I'd buy it. If they sold each episode online after the TV premier, I'd buy it. They don't (or at least didn't for the first 2 season, hopefully they learn by season 3).
When the box sets come out, I buy them. I bought season 1 the day it was released, and will do the same with season 2. So tell me where in here I'm costing them money? I'd gladly pay them to watch the show when it's new, but they don't provide anywhere near a reasonable service. So I pirate the show, and support it when the DVD's (blu-rays) come out. The issue here is a failure in service.
Again, I WANT to support HBO, I WANT to support GoT, but they force me to wait almost a year to do it.
|
On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports" I agree partially... ppl who download illegal copy of Starcraft instead of buying it are truly scumbags ...but try to get your hands on a Big Bill Broonzy album,you can't.So fuck me,right?...
|
On August 08 2012 19:01 Zerg.Zilla wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports" I agree partially... ppl who download illegal copy of Starcraft instead of buying it are truly scumbags ...but try to get your hands on a Big Bill Broonzy album,you can't.So fuck me,right?...
that's because you're probably passionate about starcraft and you want to support it as much as you can. a big bill broonzy album is probably just music to you, good music as it may be, it's not on your list of "work that i want to support." now, i assume it's because you don't have physical access to the album in any store, so that's one of the many great arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. besides, big bill probably wont find any use of the money, lol. + Show Spoiler +inb4 some dude says "herp derp so now you're saying it's ok?" no, the guy is dead.
|
not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though
|
On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though
makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too.
edit: typo.
|
On August 08 2012 18:53 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports" + Show Spoiler + As I've already said, I'd love to pay for and support Game of Thrones when each new season comes out. However, the only option they give me to do such is to purchase cable, and then a special bundle on top of that coming out to around ~$120 a month... just to watch one show. If they sold access to just HBOGO, I'd buy it. If they sold each episode online after the TV premier, I'd buy it. They don't (or at least didn't for the first 2 season, hopefully they learn by season 3).
When the box sets come out, I buy them. I bought season 1 the day it was released, and will do the same with season 2. So tell me where in here I'm costing them money? I'd gladly pay them to watch the show when it's new, but they don't provide anywhere near a reasonable service. So I pirate the show, and support it when the DVD's (blu-rays) come out. The issue here is a failure in service.
Again, I WANT to support HBO, I WANT to support GoT, but they force me to wait almost a year to do it.
And they put a pricetag on the "not having to wait". Exclusivity / Early access is costing more. But you just dont want to pay said price. Same is true for those "60 buck games". Just wait 6months - 4years, check sales (steam) and you'll be able to get most of it very cheap.
Sure I see the point of "If they offer an online solution, for i.e. people who dont live in the US and cannot access HBO at all, they'd make more money" - but in the end it's their product and they should have (imho) the right to tell people "sucks for you".
|
On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though My thoughts exactly...
|
|
People should stop trying to enforce the law upon Net. Nothing good will come of it.
|
On August 08 2012 19:26 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:18 Zocat wrote:On August 08 2012 18:53 Critter wrote:On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports" + Show Spoiler + As I've already said, I'd love to pay for and support Game of Thrones when each new season comes out. However, the only option they give me to do such is to purchase cable, and then a special bundle on top of that coming out to around ~$120 a month... just to watch one show. If they sold access to just HBOGO, I'd buy it. If they sold each episode online after the TV premier, I'd buy it. They don't (or at least didn't for the first 2 season, hopefully they learn by season 3).
When the box sets come out, I buy them. I bought season 1 the day it was released, and will do the same with season 2. So tell me where in here I'm costing them money? I'd gladly pay them to watch the show when it's new, but they don't provide anywhere near a reasonable service. So I pirate the show, and support it when the DVD's (blu-rays) come out. The issue here is a failure in service.
Again, I WANT to support HBO, I WANT to support GoT, but they force me to wait almost a year to do it. And they put a pricetag on the "not having to wait". Exclusivity / Early access is costing more. But you just dont want to pay said price. Same is true for those "60 buck games". Just wait 6months - 4years, check sales (steam) and you'll be able to get most of it very cheap. Sure I see the point of "If they offer an online solution, for i.e. people who dont live in the US and cannot access HBO at all, they'd make more money" - but in the end it's their product and they should have (imho) the right to tell people "sucks for you". Meanwhile, I can say, "sucks for you that I can pirate it instead of bending to your ridiculous terms". If companies don't adapt, people will keep pirating, and they will only have themselves to blame. you could also just not buy it? it's not like you NEED to have the product.
honestly, if you're gonna pirate, then no one's gonna stop you. but don't go around acting like you're doing people favours by pirating.
|
|
On August 08 2012 19:18 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 18:53 Critter wrote:On August 08 2012 18:18 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 18:05 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. U do realize that there are things that u can't come by right?Im not talking about todays shit that kids listen or the new twilight movie or some other shit...hell i would gladly buy these stuff in original copie instead of downloading them if someone would just give me the chance... as i've said already, i understand the ups of illegal downloading, though what i want you to realize is, no matter what situation you're in, illegal downloading is not and cannot be justified. of course this thread is not about whether or not it's okay, but the general audience on tl.net tends to think (and in some challenged cases, truly believes) that it's legal or "ok" to download digital products without paying for them, by making up a lot of good arguments as to why piracy is a good thing. edit: oh, and if you ask someone if it's ok to download an illegal copy of starcraft, the response you'll often get is either "you should go to jail" or "scumbags like you ruin esports" + Show Spoiler + As I've already said, I'd love to pay for and support Game of Thrones when each new season comes out. However, the only option they give me to do such is to purchase cable, and then a special bundle on top of that coming out to around ~$120 a month... just to watch one show. If they sold access to just HBOGO, I'd buy it. If they sold each episode online after the TV premier, I'd buy it. They don't (or at least didn't for the first 2 season, hopefully they learn by season 3).
When the box sets come out, I buy them. I bought season 1 the day it was released, and will do the same with season 2. So tell me where in here I'm costing them money? I'd gladly pay them to watch the show when it's new, but they don't provide anywhere near a reasonable service. So I pirate the show, and support it when the DVD's (blu-rays) come out. The issue here is a failure in service.
Again, I WANT to support HBO, I WANT to support GoT, but they force me to wait almost a year to do it. And they put a pricetag on the "not having to wait". Exclusivity / Early access is costing more. But you just dont want to pay said price. Same is true for those "60 buck games". Just wait 6months - 4years, check sales (steam) and you'll be able to get most of it very cheap. Sure I see the point of "If they offer an online solution, for i.e. people who dont live in the US and cannot access HBO at all, they'd make more money" - but in the end it's their product and they should have (imho) the right to tell people "sucks for you".
Sure, they have the right to spit in paying customers faces, but it's bad business and gains them no sympathy from me. What I do (pirate the shows on release, then buy the blu-rays when they come out) costs HBO nothing. The only difference between this and having a friend tape it for me, or going to his house to watch it live/on DVR, is that I get it an hour after the show is released instead of another time. What HBO does (refuses to offer a reasonable price by expecting me to pay ~$360 for one show) is costing them money.
I've said I'd gladly pay for HBOGO if they offered it to non-cable purchasers, and I'd gladly pay a reasonable price on a per episode basis, but no where in the market is $36 a reasonable price for one episode of TV. Sure, it's their right to set that, but that just means I'm going to pirate and mourn only the fact that HBO doesn't give a reasonable way to support them.
|
Damn, I only just got an invite a month ago or so.
Sad news, internet "laws" really need a revamp because it seems that it's just a shitfest on every side because there's nothing clearly defined.
|
On August 08 2012 05:31 acker wrote: Someday people in high places will realize that shutting down torrent sites is a useless and futile endeavor.
Or maybe someday legislators will be able to pass another SOPA somehow.
As long as corporations can funnel countless funds to politicians and no real campaign finance reform is passed (Citizens United opened the flood gates), there will always be these type of legislative attempts where a SOPA spin-off will try to be passed a few times a per year or so.
As a user of Demonoid in the past, all I can say is RIP to it
|
On August 08 2012 16:22 R3DT1D3 wrote: There's a difference between pirating because you have no other realistic means and pirating because you don't want to pay. The problem is that there's no way to distinguish would be customers and people who just want to have their cake and eat it too.
There is no problem, because you can still make profits, and the number of people who would buy things if they couldn't get them for free is complete conjecture.
I for one would simply not watch most things.
I pirated Firefly because I heard it was good.
I now own the box set, I went to see Serenity in the theater, and own that DVD as well.
Without pirating, they would have $0. Now they have something over $100.
|
On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo.
What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food.
How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks?
|
|
On August 08 2012 20:08 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food. How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks? Still bad, you'll never actually own the pants/shirt until you buy it. Someone will want it back and you'll have to give it to them, whereas this album I pirated? Dont have to pay a cent, dont have to give it back, etc. I pirate stuff all the time and even I think some of these excuses are so lol that it makes me sad.
|
On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. Because a infinitely replicable medium that has practically no cost to do so is of course the exact same thing as food. If you really think that way than you have no idea what your talking about and the problematic behind the laws that we currently have in place.
|
I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws...
|
^i respectfully disagree sir. keep thinking everything these corporations are doing is right and that our government has any of our interests in mind. What could possibly go wrong. YOU need a reality check
It's ok to be conservative, delusional and to refuse change, really.
On August 08 2012 17:56 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:46 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard? So basically you're angry because the government shut down a service that allowed you to illegally download (read: steal) stuff? Talk about being a hypocrite. it wasn't hypocrite in the slightest. talk about making up random bs. Besides when u steal something, it's gone. stealing isn't the same thing as copying.
He's making more sense than you.
|
So did the investigators copy the user database? I had like over 1.5tb uploaded and close to 900gb downloaded and I live in the US. Hopefully I don't get a knock on my door. And I had gotten a few notifications from my ISP of copyright infringement. Makes me sorta paranoid, but that may be for other reasons..
|
On August 08 2012 20:14 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:08 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food. How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks? Still bad, you'll never actually own the pants/shirt until you buy it. Someone will want it back and you'll have to give it to them, whereas this album I pirated? Dont have to pay a cent, dont have to give it back, etc. I pirate stuff all the time and even I think some of these excuses are so lol that it makes me sad.
They only want it back because they don't have a shirt while you're keeping it.
The relevant part of the analogy is that nothing is removed from the original owner.
|
On August 08 2012 20:29 aCePikNik wrote: So did the investigators copy the user database? I had like over 1.5tb uploaded and close to 900gb downloaded and I live in the US. Hopefully I don't get a knock on my door. And I had gotten a few notifications from my ISP of copyright infringement. Makes me sorta paranoid, but that may be for other reasons.. you know they did. and since they did this for the US, the FBI has the DB by now 100% sure.
|
On August 08 2012 20:23 CaptainCrush wrote: I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws...
Every streamer who plays music without a broadcast license is pirating.
I don't think pirating is immoral, and I don't think pirating should be illegal. I'm an adult (quite likely older than you). I've worked producing intellectual property for most of my adult life.
|
On August 08 2012 20:33 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:23 CaptainCrush wrote: I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws... Every streamer who plays music without a broadcast license is pirating. I don't think pirating is immoral, and I don't think pirating should be illegal. I'm an adult (quite likely older than you). I've worked producing intellectual property for most of my adult life.
Im not talking about streaming anything, I talking about all you saps who think that you have the right to torrent and DL whatever you want without paying for it. That is not legal and is immoral. And what does age have to do with anything? I'm an adult as well, 27 if you want specifics (again, why does this matter?). If anything your age should help you see that you are stealing from others who have worked hard in their adult life to make the media that you are acquiring for free.
Edit: Demonoid was not a streaming site so that point has little basis in this argument either. I realize that this is the internet and that I'm likely not going to change your mind, but you may want to rethink your position on the matter.
|
It's actually quite shocking and sad that at this day and age we are sitting here and still pondering over the morality of pirating. You should ask yourself what will happen in not so distant future when AM will become domestic,where not only will you be able to replicate a digital medium,but physical objects as well,for peanuts.
|
On August 08 2012 20:46 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:33 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 20:23 CaptainCrush wrote: I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws... Every streamer who plays music without a broadcast license is pirating. I don't think pirating is immoral, and I don't think pirating should be illegal. I'm an adult (quite likely older than you). I've worked producing intellectual property for most of my adult life. Im not talking about streaming anything, I talking about all you saps who think that you have the right to torrent and DL whatever you want without paying for it. That is not legal and is immoral. And what does age have to do with anything? I'm an adult as well, 27 if you want specifics (again, why does this matter?). If anything your age should help you see that you are stealing from others who have worked hard in their adult life to make the media that you are acquiring for free. Edit: Demonoid was not a streaming site so that point has little basis in this argument either. I realize that this is the internet and that I'm likely not going to change your mind, but you may want to rethink your position on the matter. Torrent can lead to purchases btw. If I never downloaded GRRMs A Song of Ice and Fire series, I would have never heard of it. After downloading it, I bought the box set for myself and my ex, and a couple family members. Then I went on to buy the new aDwD in hardback for myself and family as well. That's over $300 worth of sales that wouldn't have existed if I never used Torrent.
|
On August 08 2012 20:31 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:14 Jojo131 wrote:On August 08 2012 20:08 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food. How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks? Still bad, you'll never actually own the pants/shirt until you buy it. Someone will want it back and you'll have to give it to them, whereas this album I pirated? Dont have to pay a cent, dont have to give it back, etc. I pirate stuff all the time and even I think some of these excuses are so lol that it makes me sad. They only want it back because they don't have a shirt while you're keeping it. The relevant part of the analogy is that nothing is removed from the original owner.
except the money they didnt get from you getting your hands on one of their products without paying. sure nothing is physically removed, but it's theirs, and you didn't pay for it. they put work into making the shit you want. you might as well go to gamestop, pick any game you find, walk out of the store and say "fuck you guys, i can take this, because you dont lose money if i do"
do you seriously think gamestop gives a flying fuck if they lost a dvd with data on it that costs one fifth of a euro? no, they dont. same with online distribution. they care because of the money they dont get from you. dvds are so cheap that children in africa are more likely to get their hands on a box of those than food.
so why dont companies and authors just produce their shit and then make it free? it's a hard industry for a lot of authors unless you're usher's missing half brother or made music in the 80s. same goes for video games, more and more companies has to start out as stupid indie makers because if they want to make a breakthrough with a sick new game, they'll end up in a situation where people will look at the game and think "looks pretty cool, not so sure... meh, i'll torrent it."
no fucking wonder why blizzard, ubisoft or ea no longer makes lan friendly games, they know that the people who buy their games are faggots that wouldnt pay for them if they could avoid it. no wonder companies would rather cater to console players. they dont give a flying fuck about console players because they're consoles. they care because on consoles, people can't just torrent their shit.
let me use a funny example i remember. what do you think happend when "sniper: ghost warrior" came out, people looked at it and thought "wow, i can be a sniper and stuff, pretty cool. nice graphics... oh.. wait a minute. €59? i'll torrent that shit."
who made sniper: ghost warrior? some company named city interactive. guess what they made before that:
|
On August 08 2012 21:28 Tom Cruise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:31 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 20:14 Jojo131 wrote:On August 08 2012 20:08 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food. How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks? Still bad, you'll never actually own the pants/shirt until you buy it. Someone will want it back and you'll have to give it to them, whereas this album I pirated? Dont have to pay a cent, dont have to give it back, etc. I pirate stuff all the time and even I think some of these excuses are so lol that it makes me sad. They only want it back because they don't have a shirt while you're keeping it. The relevant part of the analogy is that nothing is removed from the original owner. except the money they didnt get from you getting your hands on one of their products without paying. sure nothing is physically removed, but it's theirs, and you didn't pay for it. they put work into making the shit you want. you might as well go to gamestop, pick any game you find, walk out of the store and say "fuck you guys, i can take this, because you dont lose money if i do" do you seriously think gamestop gives a flying fuck if they lost a dvd with data on it that costs one fifth of a euro? no, they dont. same with online distribution. they care because of the money they dont get from you. dvds are so cheap that children in africa are more likely to get their hands on a box of those than food. so why dont companies and authors just produce their shit and then make it free? it's a hard industry for a lot of authors unless you're usher's missing half brother or made music in the 80s. same goes for video games, more and more companies has to start out as stupid indie makers because if they want to make a breakthrough with a sick new game, they'll end up in a situation where people will look at the game and think "looks pretty cool, not so sure... meh, i'll torrent it." no fucking wonder why blizzard, ubisoft or ea no longer makes lan friendly games, they know that the people who buy their games are faggots that wouldnt pay for them if they could avoid it. no wonder companies would rather cater to console players. they dont give a flying fuck about console players because they're consoles. they care because on consoles, people can't just torrent their shit. let me use a funny example i remember. what do you think happend when "sniper: ghost warrior" came out, people looked at it and thought "wow, i can be a sniper and stuff, pretty cool. nice graphics... oh.. wait a minute. €59? i'll torrent that shit." who made sniper: ghost warrior? some company named city interactive. guess what they made before that: + Show Spoiler + Isn't that last point supportive of the opposite of what youre saying? Sniper ghost warrior wasnt a good game and it was nowhere near worth the 60 euro pricetag, but they released it like that anyway.
|
On August 08 2012 20:46 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:33 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 20:23 CaptainCrush wrote: I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws... Every streamer who plays music without a broadcast license is pirating. I don't think pirating is immoral, and I don't think pirating should be illegal. I'm an adult (quite likely older than you). I've worked producing intellectual property for most of my adult life. Im not talking about streaming anything, I talking about all you saps who think that you have the right to torrent and DL whatever you want without paying for it. That is not legal and is immoral. And what does age have to do with anything? I'm an adult as well, 27 if you want specifics (again, why does this matter?). If anything your age should help you see that you are stealing from others who have worked hard in their adult life to make the media that you are acquiring for free. Edit: Demonoid was not a streaming site so that point has little basis in this argument either. I realize that this is the internet and that I'm likely not going to change your mind, but you may want to rethink your position on the matter.
Are you dense?
Starcraft players who stream and play music on there are broadcasting intellectual property without permission or paying licensing fees. This is absolutely piracy, with the added factor of directly profiting from their streams.
No one in this community has a problem with that. Yet you're "shocked" that a community so "upstanding" as TeamLiquid doesn't shit a brick at someone doing something legally equivalent, and ethically less harmful?
|
On August 08 2012 22:03 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 21:28 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 20:31 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 20:14 Jojo131 wrote:On August 08 2012 20:08 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 19:15 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 19:14 askTeivospy wrote: not being able to find hardcopy of something is probably the only reasonable excuse to pirate
that try before you buy excuse just makes me lol though makes me wonder if people steal food to try it before they buy it the next time they're out shopping, too. edit: typo. What a fucking terrible analogy. Stealing food and eating it destroys the food. How about trying pants on before you buy them? How about borrowing a shirt from a friend and wearing it for a day and deciding you like how it looks? Still bad, you'll never actually own the pants/shirt until you buy it. Someone will want it back and you'll have to give it to them, whereas this album I pirated? Dont have to pay a cent, dont have to give it back, etc. I pirate stuff all the time and even I think some of these excuses are so lol that it makes me sad. They only want it back because they don't have a shirt while you're keeping it. The relevant part of the analogy is that nothing is removed from the original owner. except the money they didnt get from you getting your hands on one of their products without paying. sure nothing is physically removed, but it's theirs, and you didn't pay for it. they put work into making the shit you want. you might as well go to gamestop, pick any game you find, walk out of the store and say "fuck you guys, i can take this, because you dont lose money if i do" do you seriously think gamestop gives a flying fuck if they lost a dvd with data on it that costs one fifth of a euro? no, they dont. same with online distribution. they care because of the money they dont get from you. dvds are so cheap that children in africa are more likely to get their hands on a box of those than food. so why dont companies and authors just produce their shit and then make it free? it's a hard industry for a lot of authors unless you're usher's missing half brother or made music in the 80s. same goes for video games, more and more companies has to start out as stupid indie makers because if they want to make a breakthrough with a sick new game, they'll end up in a situation where people will look at the game and think "looks pretty cool, not so sure... meh, i'll torrent it." no fucking wonder why blizzard, ubisoft or ea no longer makes lan friendly games, they know that the people who buy their games are faggots that wouldnt pay for them if they could avoid it. no wonder companies would rather cater to console players. they dont give a flying fuck about console players because they're consoles. they care because on consoles, people can't just torrent their shit. let me use a funny example i remember. what do you think happend when "sniper: ghost warrior" came out, people looked at it and thought "wow, i can be a sniper and stuff, pretty cool. nice graphics... oh.. wait a minute. €59? i'll torrent that shit." who made sniper: ghost warrior? some company named city interactive. guess what they made before that: + Show Spoiler + Isn't that last point supportive of the opposite of what youre saying? Sniper ghost warrior wasnt a good game and it was nowhere near worth the 60 euro pricetag, but they released it like that anyway.
i don't know actually, i'm pretty tired. it's a bit of both, and i'm not taking sides, lol. just getting it out there.
|
On August 08 2012 21:09 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 20:46 CaptainCrush wrote:On August 08 2012 20:33 yeint wrote:On August 08 2012 20:23 CaptainCrush wrote: I'm honestly shocked at the number of people who think that it's acceptable to pirate media for any reason. I'm especially shocked that it's so prevalent in a community that's supposedly as upstanding as TeamLiquid. YOU guys need the reality check, not the internet laws... Every streamer who plays music without a broadcast license is pirating. I don't think pirating is immoral, and I don't think pirating should be illegal. I'm an adult (quite likely older than you). I've worked producing intellectual property for most of my adult life. Im not talking about streaming anything, I talking about all you saps who think that you have the right to torrent and DL whatever you want without paying for it. That is not legal and is immoral. And what does age have to do with anything? I'm an adult as well, 27 if you want specifics (again, why does this matter?). If anything your age should help you see that you are stealing from others who have worked hard in their adult life to make the media that you are acquiring for free. Edit: Demonoid was not a streaming site so that point has little basis in this argument either. I realize that this is the internet and that I'm likely not going to change your mind, but you may want to rethink your position on the matter. Torrent can lead to purchases btw. If I never downloaded GRRMs A Song of Ice and Fire series, I would have never heard of it. After downloading it, I bought the box set for myself and my ex, and a couple family members. Then I went on to buy the new aDwD in hardback for myself and family as well. That's over $300 worth of sales that wouldn't have existed if I never used Torrent.
Agreed. I pirated The Witcher because I had no money and had no idea what the game was about or how good it was, then later once I got a job I bought both it and its sequel. And that's after acknowledging all the problems I had with both games. Also flowchart + Show Spoiler +
Anyways, I didn't use Demonoid that much, seemed a bit clunky. But my friends did, so feeling a bit sad for them. But I have a feeling TPB will stick around for a long time, especially since everytime someone tries to fight them they'll put the e-mail on the site so everyone can see
|
That flowchart is pretty good, though the notions of "I dont like the game I would never have bought it anyway" isnt something you can say for sure. What some companies do however when they look at piracy numbers and just count that as lost sales is absolutely ridiculous, and they're only doing that to cast piracy in a bad light.
|
On August 08 2012 13:37 TheToaster wrote:
Just another instance of capitalism in effect. Corporations who own the copyrights can basically force government to take action against infringement, no matter how futile the action really is.
Exactly how is a corporation going to FORCE the government to do something? They dont have guns or jails or courts or armies. Are they going to gather a bunch of guys from accounting, arm them, and send em to the DC?
Governments enforce IP, not corporations.
|
On August 08 2012 23:15 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 13:37 TheToaster wrote:
Just another instance of capitalism in effect. Corporations who own the copyrights can basically force government to take action against infringement, no matter how futile the action really is. Exactly how is a corporation going to FORCE the government to do something? They dont have guns or jails or courts or armies. Are they going to gather a bunch of guys from accounting, arm them, and send em to the DC? Governments enforce IP, not corporations. Lol so naive,guns and jails are for simple people like you and me.Who do you think pays for the campaign of the politicians? Billions of dollars are spent every year in the world on lobbying,that's how they do it. They don't FORCE anyone to do anything,they buy them to do it willingly.
|
If I torrent something I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, I have no issue supporting artists and usually purchase something I like even after torrenting it to support it, however I refuse to just blindly buy stuff especially with the shit that is released nowadays, sometimes I take a chance like buying a collectors edition diablo 3, and sometimes I greatly regret this decision.
Fact is, if suddenly I couldn't torrent stuff I wouldn't immediately start buying it, I would just stop having it.
|
i never would have started buying CDs if it wasn't for pirating. i know the music industry has gained money from my pirating, i'm sure the same can be said about alot of other people as well.
|
On August 08 2012 17:56 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:46 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard? So basically you're angry because the government shut down a service that allowed you to illegally download (read: steal) stuff? Talk about being a hypocrite.
I'm not angry that they shut it down. Because I'll just go to the next one, it can't be stopped. No, I'm angry that they gave themselves that power in the name of justice, but really it's in the name of profits for their corporate masters.
|
On August 09 2012 00:30 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 17:56 maartendq wrote:On August 08 2012 16:46 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard? So basically you're angry because the government shut down a service that allowed you to illegally download (read: steal) stuff? Talk about being a hypocrite. I'm not angry that they shut it down. Because I'll just go to the next one, it can't be stopped. No, I'm angry that they gave themselves that power in the name of justice, but really it's in the name of profits for their corporate masters. Yeah, damn those greedy corporations making content for preventing me from having whatever I want for free! + Show Spoiler +
|
On August 09 2012 00:35 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:30 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 17:56 maartendq wrote:On August 08 2012 16:46 StarStrider wrote:On August 08 2012 16:40 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:28 overt wrote:On August 08 2012 16:25 logikly wrote:On August 08 2012 16:20 Tom Cruise wrote:On August 08 2012 15:59 Zerg.Zilla wrote:On August 08 2012 15:51 SmokeMonster wrote: I am OK as long as The Pirate Bay lives on. Yeah dude but the question is how long?Fucking governments!Everything starts to get fucked up... yeah, who would ever want to pay for something good like music that others put work, time and money into. damn governments. Exactly, and this is why the generation of today is such trash. They demand everything for free and they do not correlate that torrenting is actually stealing. Damn the governments for enforcing anti stealing laws. If you want censorship of internet go to the Middle East or china and find out what censored internet really is. If you are young, then I hope you get a bit more mature as you grow up. If you're older, seriously fuck you buddy. You really didn't add anything to this discussion and called an entire generation of people trash. Love the non sequitur, when you're actually able to argue my point please do. I generalize a generation by a few? Have you ever listened to people talk or read any of the threads about piracy places being shut down. The overwhelming consensus is that is Bullshit when in reality its perfectly legitimate to be done. It's only perfectly legitimate because lobbyists in the pockets of IP holdings and record congloms have paid off government to make it illegal. We live in a Corporatocracy not a Democracy, or are you living in a fantasy world where every man is truly free and every voice is heard? So basically you're angry because the government shut down a service that allowed you to illegally download (read: steal) stuff? Talk about being a hypocrite. I'm not angry that they shut it down. Because I'll just go to the next one, it can't be stopped. No, I'm angry that they gave themselves that power in the name of justice, but really it's in the name of profits for their corporate masters. Yeah, damn those greedy corporations making content for preventing me from having whatever I want for free! + Show Spoiler +
Why is my only choice free or unreasonable? As someone pointed out, I only take freely through pirating because it's free. Most of what I pirate I would just not buy otherwise because of exploitively high price points. Therefore they aren't losing my business to begin with. The things that I find that I become a big fan of I end up buying, as do most people who pirate, therefore making the case that free internet sharing is free advertising. And mass advertising is EXPENSIVE. I don't know why they fight it so hard. Time and again bands post record sales of albums that they give away for free. Accessibility to art and media is key, not keeping it inaccessible with high price points then punishing those who share something their friends will love.
|
It's not just the corporations loosing money! Think about the artists!
I think torrents helps artists that wouldn't normally get exposure. Most of the people download an album the would never buy and then find a song or two they like. Not much to do but complain. Does anyone know if Demonoid plans on getting back up?
User was warned for this post
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
Also, in addition to what's been said, there are products that simply do not exist or are too hard to find. A specific anime with English subtitles, out-of-print CD's, DVD's or books/comics, old computer/console games, Star Wars Christmas Special, that sort of stuff. However much you'd like to pay for it legally, you just can't obtain it.
Of course, it may be the prerogative of the copyright holder to deny people the possibility to obtain their product, but that's a slightly different discussion, because it has nothing to do with monetary gain or loss, but only with the right of the copyright holder to control his property on completely subjective grounds.
|
every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things.
The only people hurting from copyrighting is overpricing greedy producers. if you love the artist hit up the concerts that where artist make most money concerts, and payed appereances.
they have done alot of bad things, locks encrypts on music so you can put it on cd and listen in your car that why poirating became a big hit, greed turned away loyal customers. for games they started putting those locks in to stop pirating hurting paying customers that why people pirate games.
|
On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating?
|
Perfect example. I wouldn't know who M83 was if it weren't for pirating. Now I own all their music. Thus my pirating produced about 120 dollars in revenue for them / their record company.
On the other hand, I downloaded all of Becoming the Archetype, and listened through it a few times, but didn't like it too much. I may have deleted it, or it might be collecting dust on my hard disk. Doesn't matter. It's not like I would have taken a chance and bought it if pirating were magically eliminated. I would never have paid for it to begin with. I only got it because it was available through P2P sharing. Thus my pirating lost this band/company zero dollars.
We are living in a new age of information sharing and free mass advertising, yet companies still want to do things the archaic way with old traditional business models. You are not being moral by defending their laws that try to keep the status quo static, you are just being naive. It's going to happen, and it's going to continue to happen, it's the nature of the free internet, and the only way to stop it is to make the internet controlled (SOPA etc), and that would be a real shame. Companies can get smart and get on board with it, or they can keep spending millions in court to recoup a negligible amount of loss from occasional scumbags who actually pirate everything and don't end up spending a dime on anything they become a fan of.
|
On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating?
What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong?
|
On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong?
Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s).
i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy").
|
On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). Right, so streamers are technically breaking the same laws then?
|
On August 09 2012 01:18 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). Right, so streamers are technically breaking the same laws then?
I dont know if it's the same law for both cases (would probably also depend on the country). But both is breaking a law - though not necessarily the same.
|
Every time I read news like this one, I'm wondering if the music/cinema industry is winning more money or not? I mean, do we buy more cd/digital copy/dvd since the shutdown of megaupload?
|
Whoever is responsible for this should be bitchslapped until they cry.
|
On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? There is a big difference especially legally. I think in the netherlands for example, it is legal to pirate but illegal to distribute. (or something like that, I dont know the specifics)
|
I've used Demonoid for a long time. Had a pretty great ratio there too.
But when I really think about it.. I only ever torrented things that I already owned.
I torrented Black and White 2 back in the day, but only because I'd lost my disks and I really wanted to play again. I've also torrented the original Everquest on a few machines, because I used to play but have absolutely no idea where the 8 CDs I used to install the original Everquest Trilogy, Luclin, Planes of Power, etc. actually went to. Also its probably quite a bit quicker just to download the installer than to search for the disks.
I have nothing really against torrenting music, if you intend to buy the artists CD or album once you've tried some of their music. I still think there is something novel and cool about owning an artists' latest CD. iTunes is a total scam and nobody should use it. Buying songs on iTunes gives artists the smallest amount of revenue for their work.
Trying to recall the additional things that I torrented. I've torrented a few Tool albums, but always went out and bought the album afterwards just because I like having the hard copy of the music as well. OH and Planet Earth, because I lent the box set to my ex girlfriend and never got it back. Along with my sanity. Can I torrent that?
|
On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy").
My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
|
On August 09 2012 03:03 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy"). My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
I can only tell you how it's in Germany: Private vs public. If it's a private party (friends, family) you dont have to pay. If it's public (sport club, ...) you have to pay. Amount of people is not that important (though it might be hard to explain a private 500person party ). A pw protected channel is probably enough for online usage as long as you dont distribute the pw on public forums (that is speculation though from my part)
|
On August 09 2012 03:03 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 01:16 Zocat wrote:On August 09 2012 01:10 StarStrider wrote:On August 09 2012 00:55 solidbebe wrote:On August 09 2012 00:53 momonami5 wrote: every streamer who is streaming with music is pirating cause you can record those songs. It's actually kinda silly for example on my youtube channel dancing to a song I bought the cd and playing in my boombox and it got turned off for copyright lol You can't stop pirating without hurting good people. It's just one of those things. If he obtained the songs legally wouldn't it rather be distributing than pirating? What's the difference between distributing and pirating (illegally sharing)? What makes one digital transfer of another person's intellectual property acceptable and the other one wrong? Broadcasting licenses are the difference. You dont have one, even though you legally bought the song(s). i.e. since someone brought up streamers: Some (a lot) of streamers listen to online radio stations. Those radio stations have a license to broadcast the music. They payed for that license. They are also (most of the time) get money through advertisment. Now if someone "restreams" their station they dont get that ad money (since they cannot tell the ad-seller: "There were 1000 people listening to that one guy"). My thing with this though is if i go to a party with 100 people and pop my cd in the stereo and we listen to it, that's legal, yeah? So why because I'm doing it online is it illegal? Even if I only have 20 stream viewers vs. the 100 physical people at that party.
You're making money off your stream.
Copyright law is really vague and unclear. Remixes for example aren't clearly defined as legal or illegal for example.
Piracy is definitely illegal though. And streaming while listening to copyrighted music is also illegal. I dunno why companies haven't gone after streamers that hard yet do go after piracy as hard as they do. Maybe they don't really care about the infringement of their copyright as much as they care about what they view as loss of potential sales.
|
People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want.
This holds even if the product is considered to be priced "exploitively," which I find ridiculous. Media entertainment is not a necessity, and thus there should be no limit on what a company can charge for a service/product it produces. If you can't afford the product, that sucks, you don't get access to it. If you don't like the pricing, then don't buy it. But you aren't entitled by any means to having it anyways because you want the company's product, but don't like the company's pricing.
What I've seen in this thread is basically that producers should be at the mercy of donations from consumers if consumers don't like the pricing. "Oh, I ended up liking this one piece of work a lot, so I decided to buy it." It's up to the mercy of the consumer, who already has the product, to make a donation to the company for their work.
|
I cant really make up my mind on pirating. On the one hand free access to art, software and information has made the world a much better place and enriched countless lives. A kid can go get photoshop, flash designer, audio software etc and produce excellent free games and pictures for the world and himself to enjoy. He can avoid the pitfalls of shitty half assed products made by companies looking to use him. He can download stuff that he already bought, but lost or owns in a shoddy format. He can watch shows easier than sitting by his tv at a specific time being bombarded by lengthy annoying ads, and support the company in other ways like buying shirts, DVDs etc. He can download obscure hard to get elsewhere shit, become a fan and eventually make the company more money than if pirating never existed.
Or he can be a worthless douche and pirate anything and everything and make it a point to never support companies or artists financially in any way.
I do not believe anybody here falls exclusively in one of those categories, just as I do not believe anyone who would claim that pirating is exclusively good or bad. But for the most part, I believe it is a force for good. I do not like the idea of seeing the worlds greatest free library being torn down because of a knee jerk reaction from corporations having more to do with control and paranoia than preservation of profits (at least overall). The Internet is home to a cultural and artistic flowering unlike anything before seen, for all we denigrate it, and eliminating free access to tools, art and ideas will likely extinguish that.
I would love to see some studies on piratings overall impact on corporate profits, not just of CDs and the like, but taking extra factors into account like whether demand for other products, like t shirts and digital purchases was stimulated, etc. I suspect the results would be far different from what many corporatists here seem to assume. I will admit though, pirating as it currently exists is by no means the highly moral endeavor some of my comrades have duped themselves into believing it is.
|
On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote: People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want.
They can price their product at whatever price they want.
And if I can make 100% perfect copies of their product for no financial gain, I can do that too.
If they don't like that situation, they can go produce something non-copyable, like sweaters or tennis balls.
Piracy is sharing, not stealing. If I buy a book for $10, and then tell my friend what happened in the book, I've shared someone's copyrighted story.
If you don't like that situation, don't be in the story-selling business.
You don't have the right to sell me content and tell me what I can do with it. You only have the right to prohibit me selling or profiting from unauthorized copies, because that is commerce and commerce is and always has been legally regulated.
Legally regulating sharing is ridiculous.
By the way, I support going after MegaUpload. Kim Dotcom was knowingly making obscene profits off of unauthorized distribution of content, slapping ads on them.
But if I take a random CD from my collection, rip it to MP3s and make a torrent, that's completely non-commercial sharing and no one has any moral claim to any wrongdoing.
|
honestly i have run out of shit to download so now i don't really care anymore.
|
On August 09 2012 14:15 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote: People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want. They can price their product at whatever price they want. And if I can make 100% perfect copies of their product for no financial gain, I can do that too. If they don't like that situation, they can go produce something non-copyable, like sweaters or tennis balls. Piracy is sharing, not stealing. If I buy a book for $10, and then tell my friend what happened in the book, I've shared someone's copyrighted story. If you don't like that situation, don't be in the story-selling business. You don't have the right to sell me content and tell me what I can do with it. You only have the right to prohibit me selling or profiting from unauthorized copies, because that is commerce and commerce is and always has been legally regulated. Legally regulating sharing is ridiculous. By the way, I support going after MegaUpload. Kim Dotcom was knowingly making obscene profits off of unauthorized distribution of content, slapping ads on them. But if I take a random CD from my collection, rip it to MP3s and make a torrent, that's completely non-commercial sharing and no one has any moral claim to any wrongdoing.
My god, you don't need to go over the basics of sharing. I understand what it is. The point is that legally regulating sharing is not ridiculous. And sharing isn't even the correct term. It's copying in this situation. Telling your friend what happened in the book is not illegal. Copying the book in its entirety and then giving a copy to your friend is what's illegal.
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
|
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born.
There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid.
|
On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote + And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid.
If companies are shoving DRM down your throat and putting out a fucked up product don't buy it. If you pirate it, there is moral wrong.
|
On August 10 2012 00:05 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote: And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid. If companies are shoving DRM down your throat and putting out a fucked up product don't buy it. If you pirate it, there is moral wrong.
The fun part about morals is that they're subjective and not objective and that we're always going to agree to disagree on the morality argument in terms of IP.
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
spotify/pandora blocks Canadian IPs Hulu blocks Canada IPs
I r confuzzled
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
DRM
|
On August 08 2012 20:06 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 16:22 R3DT1D3 wrote: There's a difference between pirating because you have no other realistic means and pirating because you don't want to pay. The problem is that there's no way to distinguish would be customers and people who just want to have their cake and eat it too. There is no problem, because you can still make profits, and the number of people who would buy things if they couldn't get them for free is complete conjecture. I for one would simply not watch most things. I pirated Firefly because I heard it was good. I now own the box set, I went to see Serenity in the theater, and own that DVD as well. Without pirating, they would have $0. Now they have something over $100.
This. Right. Here. there's so many shows that, without pirating, I would of never watched.
|
if someone has an invite for torrent leech i would apriciate it.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote + And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid.
There's nothing immoral about setting terms and conditions. They aren't forcing you to do shit. They're saying "here's a service, you can use it for X, and it costs $60 to use it indefinitely."
If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. It's that simple. But thanks for calling me an asshole because I like the idea of a business being able to control their product. Until the product becomes a necessity, it will just be another form of personal entertainment.
On August 10 2012 01:00 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? DRM
The amount of people that bitch about DRM is mindblowing. It typically is a minor inconvenience. If DRM is the true cause of the reason of pirates, there should be no reason you don't buy the product from the producer and then torrent it yourself in the meantime.
|
On August 10 2012 04:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote: And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid. There's nothing immoral about setting terms and conditions. They aren't forcing you to do shit. They're saying "here's a service, you can use it for X, and it costs $60 to use it indefinitely." If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. It's that simple. But thanks for calling me an asshole because I like the idea of a business being able to control their product. Until the product becomes a necessity, it will just be another form of personal entertainment. Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 01:00 amazingxkcd wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? DRM The amount of people that bitch about DRM is mindblowing. It typically is a minor inconvenience. If DRM is the true cause of the reason of pirates, there should be no reason you don't buy the product from the producer and then torrent it yourself in the meantime. A lot of DRM is worse than you think, my bioshock cd suddenly refused to install itself on my computer because I had already installed it 3 times before or something. (Had formatted my computer a lot) If I had downloaded the game from the internet I would not have this problem.
|
On August 10 2012 04:16 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 04:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 10 2012 00:01 stevarius wrote: And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
The real moral wrongdoing is the shitty idea that the person only owns the "license" to the software that can only be used as the company tells you to. Every time some company decides they want to shove DRM or some other fucked up feature down the consumers throats to force their paying users to operate and access software in only the manner the company approves of, another pirate is born. There is nothing moral about pissing off your consumers with this kind of shit. Even worse is the assholes who actually believe the above quoted statement and this whole moral high road bullshit that is sympathetic with companies putting out fucked up products. Trying to regulate sharing of content over the internet is so fucking impractical that it's stupid. There's nothing immoral about setting terms and conditions. They aren't forcing you to do shit. They're saying "here's a service, you can use it for X, and it costs $60 to use it indefinitely." If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. It's that simple. But thanks for calling me an asshole because I like the idea of a business being able to control their product. Until the product becomes a necessity, it will just be another form of personal entertainment. On August 10 2012 01:00 amazingxkcd wrote:On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources? DRM The amount of people that bitch about DRM is mindblowing. It typically is a minor inconvenience. If DRM is the true cause of the reason of pirates, there should be no reason you don't buy the product from the producer and then torrent it yourself in the meantime. A lot of DRM is worse than you think, my bioshock cd suddenly refused to install itself on my computer because I had already installed it 3 times before or something. (Had formatted my computer a lot) If I had downloaded the game from the internet I would not have this problem.
Yeah, and that's not something that will affect the majority of users. And if you already bought the game, the piracy issue is much less relevant anyways. What I'm saying is if DRM is the primary reason for pirates, then there is no excuse not to buy the game from the developer/producer and just pirate it yourself. I typically find it much easier to go through the legitimate process than find a legitimate torrent, wait for the download times, move a few folders around, copy the crack, and then run it, not to mention the patching process can be a major hassle, and to top it off, you're less likely to get up to date results as someone else has to do the patches as well. And torrented games on average have tended to be slightly buggier than not from personal experience.
|
If the DRM is horribly limiting, then you send a message with your wallet by not buying the product. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
If the product is horribly overpriced, then you send a message with your wallet by not buying the product. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
If their business model sucks and they would make more money by releasing it freely, it's still their call. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
|
On August 10 2012 04:27 starfries wrote: If the DRM is horribly limiting, then you send a message with your wallet by not buying the product. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
If the product is horribly overpriced, then you send a message with your wallet by not buying the product. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
If their business model sucks and they would make more money by releasing it freely, it's still their call. It doesn't make it okay to pirate it.
This is basically what I've been trying to say. Simply because you don't like their business model doesn't entitle you to copy their product. Only exception I have is that I think if DRM is pissing you off that much, buy the product full price and don't use it and just torrent it instead.
Honestly, people say that pirating has helped the industry, and I don't contest that, at the moment. But realize only around ~20% of the U.S. population torrents (where a great portion of entertainment media is produced). Why is it so low? Because of the fear of repercussions by the government and the stories of $100,000+ lawsuits against those who are convicted of copyright infringement.
The vast majority of the population isn't tech savvy, let alone familiar with the process to torrent something. At best they can download some songs using a program like Limewire/Frostwire. The older generation is scared shitless that their kids will torrent and often forbid them to do so.
So what happens if we legalize torrenting? That fear goes away. Why would I ever pay for something again, ever, if there was no reason to? Charity? Sure, maybe to the absolute best of the best, and still then, there's nothing to say I'd pay the full price they were asking. I would torrent absolutely everything if it was legalized and pay nothing - because from a legal standpoint, I wasn't doing anything wrong.
And you can bet a large, large portion of the people would do as I, and massively torrent/copy if it becomes legal. Producers will become reliant upon charity contributions for their product, and to me, that's an absolute joke.
|
I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate.
I haven't really used Demonoid so I won't miss it.
|
Mr US stop closing my download sites damn it! Next time they will tell me to go to shop and buy something pff.
|
On August 09 2012 05:14 Zahir wrote:
Or he can be a worthless douche and pirate anything and everything and make it a point to never support companies or artists financially in any way.
Not everyone can afford to support the companies they love........... I fall into that ''worthless douche '' category because neither me or my family have enough money to buy all the music we listen to or the movies we watch or the games I play. The last game I bought was starcraft and the only reason I did that was because of online. I pirate everything and anything, 8gb's of music all pirated simply because I can't afford to buy it. Your statement is ignorant and completely dependent on the individual.
|
Well pirates are kind of still a consumers, they have pc's, they buy cds, hard drives, pay for net and electricity its hardly that they are killing the industry. In fact i discovered certain music genres because i was allowed to download it, probably would never know about it otherwise.
Not an argument for or against, just against extreme actions from both sides, closing neutral sites that work like hubs (merely) is not going to help much. In case of piracy as a whole. Its a side effect of a medium, but i would preffer that they would combat it by market. You may say how do you combat something that is free. Many people still buy original products, steam was a great idea and a step forward toward seemingly better solution. .
|
On August 10 2012 04:41 Kevan wrote: I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate.
No - most people will not purchase it. Or pay ridiculous low amounts of money for it if it's "pay how much you want".
On August 10 2012 04:47 Fallians wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 05:14 Zahir wrote:
Or he can be a worthless douche and pirate anything and everything and make it a point to never support companies or artists financially in any way.
Not everyone can afford to support the companies they love........... I fall into that ''worthless douche '' category because neither me or my family have enough money to buy all the music we listen to or the movies we watch or the games I play. The last game I bought was starcraft and the only reason I did that was because of online. I pirate everything and anything, 8gb's of music all pirated simply because I can't afford to buy it. Your statement is ignorant and completely dependent on the individual.
Stop smoking weed. Now you can buy at least some games / movies.
|
On August 10 2012 05:33 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 04:41 Kevan wrote: I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate. No - most people will not purchase it. Or pay ridiculous low amounts of money for it if it's "pay how much you want". Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 04:47 Fallians wrote:On August 09 2012 05:14 Zahir wrote:
Or he can be a worthless douche and pirate anything and everything and make it a point to never support companies or artists financially in any way.
Not everyone can afford to support the companies they love........... I fall into that ''worthless douche '' category because neither me or my family have enough money to buy all the music we listen to or the movies we watch or the games I play. The last game I bought was starcraft and the only reason I did that was because of online. I pirate everything and anything, 8gb's of music all pirated simply because I can't afford to buy it. Your statement is ignorant and completely dependent on the individual. Stop smoking weed. Now you can buy at least some games / movies. Most people will not purchase it? You realize the majority of people are still just legit buyers and not pirates.
|
See FabledIntegral's last post. He explains it.
|
On August 10 2012 05:33 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 04:41 Kevan wrote: I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate. No - most people will not purchase it. Yes they will.
|
On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote: People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want.
This holds even if the product is considered to be priced "exploitively," which I find ridiculous. Media entertainment is not a necessity, and thus there should be no limit on what a company can charge for a service/product it produces. If you can't afford the product, that sucks, you don't get access to it. If you don't like the pricing, then don't buy it. But you aren't entitled by any means to having it anyways because you want the company's product, but don't like the company's pricing.
What I've seen in this thread is basically that producers should be at the mercy of donations from consumers if consumers don't like the pricing. "Oh, I ended up liking this one piece of work a lot, so I decided to buy it." It's up to the mercy of the consumer, who already has the product, to make a donation to the company for their work.
You are conflating companies and producers here, i.e. those who create media, and those who distribute it. Most of the media that is consumed, whether paid or pirated, is distributed by companies that are not owned by the producers of said media. There are a few instances where people really can try to remunerate the artists themselves, for example by pirating music but then attending concerts of the musicians and buying merchandise from them.
|
On August 09 2012 23:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 14:15 yeint wrote:On August 09 2012 03:59 FabledIntegral wrote: People's personal examples of how pirating increased a company's revenue is irrelevant for me. For me the issue is that regardless of whether they profited or not, a company should be able to price their own product, at whatever price they want. They can price their product at whatever price they want. And if I can make 100% perfect copies of their product for no financial gain, I can do that too. If they don't like that situation, they can go produce something non-copyable, like sweaters or tennis balls. Piracy is sharing, not stealing. If I buy a book for $10, and then tell my friend what happened in the book, I've shared someone's copyrighted story. If you don't like that situation, don't be in the story-selling business. You don't have the right to sell me content and tell me what I can do with it. You only have the right to prohibit me selling or profiting from unauthorized copies, because that is commerce and commerce is and always has been legally regulated. Legally regulating sharing is ridiculous. By the way, I support going after MegaUpload. Kim Dotcom was knowingly making obscene profits off of unauthorized distribution of content, slapping ads on them. But if I take a random CD from my collection, rip it to MP3s and make a torrent, that's completely non-commercial sharing and no one has any moral claim to any wrongdoing. My god, you don't need to go over the basics of sharing. I understand what it is. The point is that legally regulating sharing is not ridiculous. And sharing isn't even the correct term. It's copying in this situation. Telling your friend what happened in the book is not illegal. Copying the book in its entirety and then giving a copy to your friend is what's illegal. And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
I am forced to agree here. Much as I love what pirating has done to enlighten and empower my generation, it is by no means some god given right. At its best, pirating enriches everyone by stimulating demand, widening audiences and developing markets. At its worst, it forces a software company to price what ought to be a 60 dollar program at 600 bucks because developers and schools are the only ones paying for it.
|
About time. Pirating is bad.
|
On August 08 2012 07:37 Nevermind86 wrote: This reminds me of Metal Gear Solid's information control, some of you guys do not understand that webpages like demonoid are part of the digital revolution millions of people in the third world like myself for the first time in history had access to all this media content from music, videos, films, documentals, software, all this content was either too expensive or inaccessible, with access to infromation our level of education has increased tenfold from the last generation, just look at most hardcore pirates, people who have learned english like myself solely from interacting over the internet, from Russia, Vietnam, Peru, Venezuela, etc, where would I have listened to bands like Led Zeppelin or Nirvana?, those are almost unheard of in my country, but internet has made them incredibly popular between my entire internet-generation, through playing warcraft III I shared my mp3 nirvana songs with so many people from different latin american countries and a lot of those people became fans of this rock band, now that I'm older rock music has taken a second place in my life, now it's books, I got hundreds of books in PDF format, a true collections of classics from 1984 to a bunch of books of Isaac Asimov and Chuck Palahnkiuk and I download pimspleur english lessons for spanish speakers to give it to my local friends who want to learn english, using the internet I have learned 2 languages now and I'm learning a forth one. if i was born 10 years earlier this would have been almost impossible. Almost all this content I got from Demonoid, that's what it gave me, it is such an important part of my life.
Now anonymous members from Venezuela, my country, have put corrupt politicians in the spotlight as frauds hacking their twitter accounts and taking down their webpages, they learned those skills too, the same way I learned mine. If there is something that will turn humanity into a thinking mass, instead of a mindless mass is this abundant flow of information, these people looking to finish sharing of files may have a legal reason, but they live in another age, conservatives, holding the progress of humanity to hold to an inherited fortune.
Well said. The only truly measurable form of evil is ignorance. The only true measurable form of good is knowledge.
|
I won't miss Demonoid, since I didn't use it much.
I typically get stuff on the worlds most resiliant torrent site
As for Pirating...
Well, the reason that pirating of TV, movies, music, is largely because the old method of business just doesn't work in the modern age.
Today's consumers use largely digital media, in players, computers, phones, car audio systems, etc.
As such, stuff should be sold and licensed in a digital media as well as the current model.
Itunes has the right idea - sell songs, or full albums in a digital format for download. PC software developers are on board - and look how busy Steam has been selling software by direct download. Burn to a disc for safe keeping, and it's a good business model. The software and music industries carry none of the overhead with production of hard copy media, and blank media sales have never been better.
The TV and movie industries are stuck in the stone ages. VERY FEW companies produce content and allow for free streaming on thier website. A popular example of success to this model is the NFL's superbowl last year - it was streamed online on their website. You could watch it, if your county's IP wasn't blocked from the site of course.
I personally download nearly all the TV and movies I watch on my home computer. Nearly all of it is European sports coverage, which I simply CANNOT get here in Canada on ANY North American brodcaster - regardless of how much money I want to pay. I could offer my local cable company $1,000 a month to have access to BBC sports and Eurosport to watch my Motogp and World superbike, and they simply cannot provide the product. Speed offers VERY limited coverage of these particular sports, and don't even get me started on WRC (World Rally)...
At the same time, that it is illigal to record (in any method) ANY TV programming, Cable companies sell and rent Personal Recorders to digitally record your favorite shows to watch them later. The result: start watching your show 20 minutes after it starts, and fast forward through ALL the Commercials - the very reason that TV and Movie indisutries hate downloads - they cannot sell and cash in on commercial sales.
I would happily stream my favorite TV shows and Movies, Commercials included - if these moguls offered it. They do not. So, I will download it with or without commercials, and watch the programming which i cannot get in my region from providers in another continent.
|
Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show....
|
On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... Like itunes?
|
On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show....
newsflash: a steam business model will work neither for TV shows nor for music. Steam has one of the most horrendous DRM you can find as in you cannot use the stuff you bought unless you are online on your one single installation. Try listening to a song to your phone that requires you to be logged in on steam to play on your computer while connected to it, have fun ;P
The distribution model (spend a few bucks, download and play immediately) should be adopted, i assume that's what you mean. But please, not the whole business model.
|
On August 10 2012 07:38 Hokay wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... Like itunes?
Itunes is a horrible platform and an unbelievably shitty piece of software.
Is this a joke?
|
On August 10 2012 08:04 MisterD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... newsflash: a steam business model will work neither for TV shows nor for music. Steam has one of the most horrendous DRM you can find as in you cannot use the stuff you bought unless you are online on your one single installation. Try listening to a song to your phone that requires you to be logged in on steam to play on your computer while connected to it, have fun ;P The distribution model (spend a few bucks, download and play immediately) should be adopted, i assume that's what you mean. But please, not the whole business model. Even then getting rights secured in each country is such a pain for companies.
|
On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... Amazing? I seem to recall this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=357548
Where Steam is becoming so dominant that it can begin restricting user rights and, basically, holding any bought games hostage until you agree to whatever their new terms are. In this case, removing the right to class action lawsuits.
Distribution is great, yeah. Implementation is great... for Valve.
|
On August 10 2012 05:47 Kevan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:33 Zocat wrote:On August 10 2012 04:41 Kevan wrote: I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate. No - most people will not purchase it. Yes they will.
Not if piracy is legalized.
|
On August 10 2012 09:03 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 05:47 Kevan wrote:On August 10 2012 05:33 Zocat wrote:On August 10 2012 04:41 Kevan wrote: I am very much for piracy. It is not stealing and it will never go away no matter how hard you try. If you offer a product that is worth purchasing instead of pirating then most people will purchase it. That is the best way to "fight" piracy in my opinion, to give the buyer more than the pirate. No - most people will not purchase it. Yes they will. Not if piracy is legalized. Well then it's not really piracy anymore. And even then I'd say it's questionable.
|
On August 09 2012 23:32 FabledIntegral wrote: My god, you don't need to go over the basics of sharing. I understand what it is. The point is that legally regulating sharing is not ridiculous. And sharing isn't even the correct term. It's copying in this situation. Telling your friend what happened in the book is not illegal. Copying the book in its entirety and then giving a copy to your friend is what's illegal.
But it seems you don't understand what sharing and copying are. Telling your friend what happened is providing the content of the book to them. So is photocopying the book. The fidelity of information transfer does not change the moral argument either way. It may change the financial argument, though.
And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself.
I don't recognize this right they're claiming. There is nothing immoral about not-for-profit copying, and no amount of tautology will change that. When I pay for a creative work on a medium, I consider myself the owner, not the licensee. No law, or EULA, or international treaty signed by corrupt political whores will change that.
|
Saying pirating is evil is all good and fun if you have the money to buy all the media you want, but most people simply don't, nor do they have the time to spend hours in CD music shops or filtering through muck on the radio trying to find out if the album they want to buy is actually worth more then a couple listens, and with the sheer amount of crap that get's released on video, audio or software these days you'd have to be an idiot to just buy something without trying it properly first. Gee, wonder why they don't release demo's anymore.
This free sharing of information is causing revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world, yet we want to restrict it because already extremely rich movie and music studio's see a bit more potential revenue to be made, don't kid yourself, only the 50Cent's and Britney Spears of this world make significant revenue from CD sales, real musicians rely on concerts, something which you can never download. The rest all get's pumped into the industries bureacracy, the lobbying groups, producers, sales branch, anti-piracy groups, institutions that are quickly becoming obsolete, this is their last desperate struggle to gain control over a new form of media and remain the monarchs of music exploitation.
And it's not like movie attendance has significantly dropped anyway, mostly a matter of not seeing the same amount of growth and the financial crises creating higher priorities, hell, at this point you could even argue the market is just oversaturated and the inordinate amount of (terrible) remakes and sequels that have been produced the last decade might have increased peoples mistrust when it comes to movies.
Your perspective on pirating really changes if you don't have a high paying job or rich parents, or a capable of seeing the declining trend in media quality.
|
On August 10 2012 07:38 Hokay wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... Like itunes?
iTunes is crap though. There is stuff out there that is much better than iTunes. So glad I stopped using it.
|
Explain to me again how you not paying for Transformers 3 is promoting "revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world?" I'm genuinely curious, because I would like to understand that argument.
|
I will pirate for as long as I need to in order to watch what I want, I'm not gonna buy a tv, and spend like 30 pounds a month for a sky subscription just to watch one or two shows per week
|
On August 10 2012 08:33 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 07:36 cydial wrote: Instead of bitching non stop, maybe it's time to change your business model to match that of steam... An amazing distribution platform for every game it sells.
I torrent, but I'm more than willing to buy if the person selling it isn't trying to rape my fucking wallet by charging 50 dollars for 1 season of a show.... Amazing? I seem to recall this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=357548Where Steam is becoming so dominant that it can begin restricting user rights and, basically, holding any bought games hostage until you agree to whatever their new terms are. In this case, removing the right to class action lawsuits. Distribution is great, yeah. Implementation is great... for Valve.
Sure that may be a bit dubious but it's not like it will ever affect you. Have you ever participated or done a class-action lawsuit? You could still sue them yourself and it would be perfectly fine even if you signed the TOS. It's far and above the best model for stopping constant piracy in my opinion.
|
On August 11 2012 03:17 Scootaloo wrote: Saying pirating is evil is all good and fun if you have the money to buy all the media you want, but most people simply don't, nor do they have the time to spend hours in CD music shops or filtering through muck on the radio trying to find out if the album they want to buy is actually worth more then a couple listens, and with the sheer amount of crap that get's released on video, audio or software these days you'd have to be an idiot to just buy something without trying it properly first. Gee, wonder why they don't release demo's anymore.
This free sharing of information is causing revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world, yet we want to restrict it because already extremely rich movie and music studio's see a bit more potential revenue to be made, don't kid yourself, only the 50Cent's and Britney Spears of this world make significant revenue from CD sales, real musicians rely on concerts, something which you can never download. The rest all get's pumped into the industries bureacracy, the lobbying groups, producers, sales branch, anti-piracy groups, institutions that are quickly becoming obsolete, this is their last desperate struggle to gain control over a new form of media and remain the monarchs of music exploitation.
And it's not like movie attendance has significantly dropped anyway, mostly a matter of not seeing the same amount of growth and the financial crises creating higher priorities, hell, at this point you could even argue the market is just oversaturated and the inordinate amount of (terrible) remakes and sequels that have been produced the last decade might have increased peoples mistrust when it comes to movies.
Your perspective on pirating really changes if you don't have a high paying job or rich parents, or a capable of seeing the declining trend in media quality.
I just don't understand this. If you don't have the money to buy something, you shouldn't get to have it. I'm sorry, but people produce things, and they can choose to charge you however much they want to. Just wanting something doesn't mean you can have it, or justify pirating. "But they charge too much!" Sure, maybe that's true, but that's their choice to make.
"Causing revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world"? What? Watching a torrented Game of Thrones isn't doing much to advance the knowledge of less fortunate people. Maybe if they're torrenting books, maybe. Even then, it's still not justification. I'd hate to live in a world where I don't get my returns on something I've produced. Regardless of how much their making, pirating it isn't any more justified.
|
On August 11 2012 04:18 Dalguno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 03:17 Scootaloo wrote: Saying pirating is evil is all good and fun if you have the money to buy all the media you want, but most people simply don't, nor do they have the time to spend hours in CD music shops or filtering through muck on the radio trying to find out if the album they want to buy is actually worth more then a couple listens, and with the sheer amount of crap that get's released on video, audio or software these days you'd have to be an idiot to just buy something without trying it properly first. Gee, wonder why they don't release demo's anymore.
This free sharing of information is causing revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world, yet we want to restrict it because already extremely rich movie and music studio's see a bit more potential revenue to be made, don't kid yourself, only the 50Cent's and Britney Spears of this world make significant revenue from CD sales, real musicians rely on concerts, something which you can never download. The rest all get's pumped into the industries bureacracy, the lobbying groups, producers, sales branch, anti-piracy groups, institutions that are quickly becoming obsolete, this is their last desperate struggle to gain control over a new form of media and remain the monarchs of music exploitation.
And it's not like movie attendance has significantly dropped anyway, mostly a matter of not seeing the same amount of growth and the financial crises creating higher priorities, hell, at this point you could even argue the market is just oversaturated and the inordinate amount of (terrible) remakes and sequels that have been produced the last decade might have increased peoples mistrust when it comes to movies.
Your perspective on pirating really changes if you don't have a high paying job or rich parents, or a capable of seeing the declining trend in media quality.
I just don't understand this. If you don't have the money to buy something, you shouldn't get to have it. I'm sorry, but people produce things, and they can choose to charge you however much they want to. Just wanting something doesn't mean you can have it, or justify pirating. "But they charge too much!" Sure, maybe that's true, but that's their choice to make. "Causing revolutions of knowledge in less fortunate parts of the world"? What? Watching a torrented Game of Thrones isn't doing much to advance the knowledge of less fortunate people. Maybe if they're torrenting books, maybe. Even then, it's still not justification. I'd hate to live in a world where I don't get my returns on something I've produced. Regardless of how much their making, pirating it isn't any more justified. Yeah screw those people who aren't born in rich countries and need to work for a week to gather the funds to buy a legit $45 copy of GoT's first season, they shouldn't have access to our fancy aristocrat entertainment.
Life's so good as a most-likely white, privileged Westerner living in a rich country, everyone else can fuck off, right?
The idea that your life should suck if you don't make enough money disgusts me. Some luxuries should be out of their reach yes, but fuck, please, not all of them.
|
On August 08 2012 07:10 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am confused why people still pirate so much. Music is cheap/free through itunes/spotify/pandora/other sources Most movies and TV shows are cheap/free from netflix/hulu (admittedly, I do pirate some TV shows, like top gear) Games are sometimes cheap on steam/amazon/origin
Why not just pay or get it from free legitimate sources?
This post alone means you have absolutely no idea about movie and tv shows.
Netflix is ridiculously outdated and slow when it comes to obtaining shows. You don't obtain them until a years after the DVDs are out. They are only up to Dexter season three. SEASON 6 IS ALREADY OVER!!
Now, my wife and I have a subscription to netflix, but it simply isn't a resonable source for new products.
If I can watch it within a reasonable time frame and support the company (like with The Legend of Korra, and pretty much anything from Funimation in regards to anime) I will. But unfortunately most networks do not offer streams of their shows even for a premium, which is outrageous in this day in age.
The reason people pirate is because we do not have access to the material we want, so instead we obtain it the only way possible for the most part, torrenting.
|
this is like on the movie inception when the dude has an internal swat team
|
Pirating stuff is oftentimes more convenient.
No annoying discs that get damaged or lost. Maybe it sounds bad, but if I pay, I get less - so it feels like I'm getting screwed for being honest. When I really like something like GoT, I find myself buying the physical media, and since my place isn't huge, it just takes up space, so it ends up in one of my cardboard "storage boxes" in the storage room that's starting to look like a game of Tetris that went horribly wrong. If I rearrange it, maybe I can fit another 2-3 more boxes of shit in there. I could also download the digital version but with my download limit of 120GB per month, I can't just stream HD content from Amazon. I'd rather have a digital copy on my hard drives. With torrents, I can pick up compressed episodes in low quality, which is more convenient for me.
Give me a good ISP which gives me unlimited or a large amount of bandwidth and a service that allows me to actually own the TV shows and movies that I want and allows me to store it on my hard drives, and then I'll do more business with them. Digital media that I OWN.
There's also no DRM. I bought Max Payne 3 on Steam over a month ago and I've only been able to play it for like 2 hours before their platform decided that my activation was bad. I contacted Steam, they told me to contact Rockstar. I contacted Rockstar and they responded after 14 days - they had me take a bunch of screenshots of the game, my steam receipt, tried to give me a new product key which didn't work. Finally they decided to send me a disc copy in the mail. Monday this week, my ticket had been open for 22 days, they said "We will send you a new copy next week and it should arrive the week after." Props to Rockstar, they'll solve the issue - but if I had downloaded the game illegally like some of my friends have, I'd have played through it and I'd be done with it.
So if people wonder why people still pirate stuff, well those are some of the reasons, whether or not you think it justifies anything.
|
On August 10 2012 20:43 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 23:32 FabledIntegral wrote: My god, you don't need to go over the basics of sharing. I understand what it is. The point is that legally regulating sharing is not ridiculous. And sharing isn't even the correct term. It's copying in this situation. Telling your friend what happened in the book is not illegal. Copying the book in its entirety and then giving a copy to your friend is what's illegal. But it seems you don't understand what sharing and copying are. Telling your friend what happened is providing the content of the book to them. So is photocopying the book. The fidelity of information transfer does not change the moral argument either way. It may change the financial argument, though. Show nested quote +And yes, companies do have the legal right to sell you content and tell you what to do with it, that's why you don't own software, you own an individual license to utilize to software. To claim you haven't done any moral wrongdoing is simply deluding yourself. I don't recognize this right they're claiming. There is nothing immoral about not-for-profit copying, and no amount of tautology will change that. When I pay for a creative work on a medium, I consider myself the owner, not the licensee. No law, or EULA, or international treaty signed by corrupt political whores will change that.
Except I do understand what it is. No, telling your friend what happened is not the same. Providing a synposis is not an issue by either sides and should not be addressed. Even if you were to recite the entire book to a friend - no copying has taken place. Your friend does not have in his possession a copy of the book you speak of. This is the issue we're addressing, and your attempt to trivialize the difference is astoundingly inaccurate.
The method of information transfer is crucial to the debate, and that's what's being addressed. Never in the past have methods of such information transfer been viable and commonplace, and never in the past has it been an issue. Because it is now, we have address whether or not it is a problem in society and thus it becomes a moral argument.
If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead.
In fact, if there's no moral dilemma, why would there even be an issue if you were making a profit through illegally redistributing the product? If the original producer isn't entitled to revenues for people obtaining the product for personal use, why is it relevant if other people are making profits (to which they aren't entitled either - in fact, no one is entitled to it). In short, if you're arguing that a producer is entitled to zero revenue from its product, why is it suddenly entitled to revenue if someone else manages to redistribute it for a profit? Where is the inherent moral dilemma someone else is making money?
And to take it one step further with a detailed example, imagine this. Mass Effect 3 was $60 retail, and someone else manages to copy and distribute it for only $10 and gets sales from only a specific group of consumers that "wouldn't have bought it for $60 anyways." That means there's no financial loss for the original producer, correct? So where's the issue?
You considering yourself an owner is a ridiculous act of self-entitlement that I can only laugh at. The people that bitch about the corrupt and profiteering of corporations only use it as an excuse to justify their acts. When you purchase a license, you're basically signing a contract that says "hey, I'm going to give you $50 to use your product." You're then trying to say "nah, I know I just "agreed" to these terms saying I can obtain only a license your product for $50, but I think I should own it instead." Guess what, if they wanted to actually give you ownership of their product and give you complete ownership they wouldn't put a friggin' pricetag of $50 on it.
But of course, you'll go a step further and rationalize that even if they were offering the total sale of the item to your possession for $50, they're still greedy corporate scumbags and you're entitled to it for free because of technological advancement allows you to do so without getting caught.
If piracy is ever legalized, we'll witness the death of a great majority of media entertainment produced. It's only fear mongering by the government of repercussions at the moment that has prevented piracy from becoming an issue in the U.S., where all the profits are anyways.
On August 11 2012 05:54 Djzapz wrote: Pirating stuff is oftentimes more convenient.
No annoying discs that get damaged or lost. Maybe it sounds bad, but if I pay, I get less - so it feels like I'm getting screwed for being honest. When I really like something like GoT, I find myself buying the physical media, and since my place isn't huge, it just takes up space, so it ends up in one of my cardboard "storage boxes" in the storage room that's starting to look like a game of Tetris that went horribly wrong. If I rearrange it, maybe I can fit another 2-3 more boxes of shit in there. I could also download the digital version but with my download limit of 120GB per month, I can't just stream HD content from Amazon. I'd rather have a digital copy on my hard drives. With torrents, I can pick up compressed episodes in low quality, which is more convenient for me.
Give me a good ISP which gives me unlimited or a large amount of bandwidth and a service that allows me to actually own the TV shows and movies that I want and allows me to store it on my hard drives, and then I'll do more business with them. Digital media that I OWN.
There's also no DRM. I bought Max Payne 3 on Steam over a month ago and I've only been able to play it for like 2 hours before their platform decided that my activation was bad. I contacted Steam, they told me to contact Rockstar. I contacted Rockstar and they responded after 14 days - they had me take a bunch of screenshots of the game, my steam receipt, tried to give me a new product key which didn't work. Finally they decided to send me a disc copy in the mail. Monday this week, my ticket had been open for 22 days, they said "We will send you a new copy next week and it should arrive the week after." Props to Rockstar, they'll solve the issue - but if I had downloaded the game illegally like some of my friends have, I'd have played through it and I'd be done with it.
So if people wonder why people still pirate stuff, well those are some of the reasons, whether or not you think it justifies anything.
Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise.
|
There are so many other sites out there, they are not really addressing the root problem.
|
On August 11 2012 06:04 FabledIntegral wrote: Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise. For games, that's reasonable and that's what I do for the ones I like. However (theoretically) if all the good public torrent sites got shut down and I no longer had that option, it would suck.
I don't want to rely on Rockstar and big companies like them to be able to play my games when I want to.
|
If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all.
|
On August 11 2012 18:38 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all. What are you trying to say, that piracy is hard work?
|
On August 11 2012 19:02 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 18:38 Thorakh wrote:If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all. What are you trying to say, that piracy is hard work? Ehh what...?
I'm saying that some products are only available to me through piracy.
|
On August 11 2012 19:21 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 19:02 starfries wrote:On August 11 2012 18:38 Thorakh wrote:If someone else invested thousands or millions of dollars as well as time to produce a quality product under the assumption it could legally distribute its results for cash as a means to recoup the heavy investment, it's a huge moral fucking dilemma when people go through means to subvert the fee to obtain the product and get it for free instead. I don't go through means to obtain a product for free, I have to go through means to obtain a product at all. What are you trying to say, that piracy is hard work? Ehh what...? I'm saying that some products are only available to me through piracy. Ohh, gotcha
|
Sad, I loved that site.
|
|
I'm kinda amazed at all the straight edges on this web site, must be nice having all that money.
But anyway demonoid sucked for movies and games, I went there for the amazing collection of ebooks/comics.
If anyone knows another good spot feel free to PM me (4.0 ratio on demonoid)
|
I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing.
|
Then buy the game from steam, don't download it, and torrent it instead? DRM has never been a valid excuse to not pay and pirate. If that is the actual justification for pirating, you should be buying the game and then torrenting it to bypass the DRM. Saying DRM is the issue implies that you wouldn't mind paying for the product otherwise.
You realize there are a LOT of games that steam doesn't have right?
Fun fact: I pirated SC2 before I bought it and played the entire campaign before deciding to try online.
I played very little BW and didn't get any beta action.
|
On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing. Don't you know what stealing even means? Because clearly it is not.
|
On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing.
I don't either, it is stealing, its just easy as fuck and free. It makes perfect sense to do it. I have limited funds and want to "own" much more media than I can afford. So I steal digital copies of it and don't give a fuck about who doesn't receive revenues because of it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact most people aren't comfortable with admitting they are doing something immoral. Taking someone's creations without paying them or the rightful owner for it is wrong. It's just way too easy not to do it.
Yay rational behavior!
|
On August 12 2012 01:34 Nizaris wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing. Don't you know what stealing even means? Because clearly it is not.
I always found it funny how people are quick to argue semantics in this case, presenting legal definitions of what stealing is to prove their point. Why don't you guys just reclaim the word and be proud of what you're doing? No one seems to be distancing themselves from the word "piracy"; if you ask me, it would seem that there's more in common between violation of intellectual property rights and stealing than violation of intellectual property rights and criminal violence on the high seas.
I don't either, it is stealing, its just easy as fuck and free. It makes perfect sense to do it. I have limited funds and want to "own" much more media than I can afford. So I steal digital copies of it and don't give a fuck about who doesn't receive revenues because of it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact most people aren't comfortable with admitting they are doing something immoral. Taking someone's creations without paying them or the rightful owner for it is wrong. It's just way too easy not to do it.
Yay rational behavior!
See, this I can understand. Thank you, sir, for being truthful, or dare I say, frank!
I'm kinda amazed at all the straight edges on this web site, must be nice having all that money.
Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website.
EDIT: It would appear that the word "piracy" has been used to mean copyright infringement for at least a few centuries. Still, I don't see how it is any less hyperbolic than "theft".
|
Oh noes, what ever are we going to do with only fifty thousand other torrenting sites out there? Jesus Christ this bullshit is getting really annoying. When are they going to grow the hell up?
|
On August 12 2012 01:48 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 01:34 Nizaris wrote:On August 12 2012 01:22 Xenocryst wrote: I still don't understand why everyone on the internet seems to think piracy is ok.... It IS stealing. Don't you know what stealing even means? Because clearly it is not. I always found it funny how people are quick to argue semantics in this case, presenting legal definitions of what stealing is to prove their point. Why don't you guys just reclaim the word and be proud of what you're doing? No one seems to be distancing themselves from the word "piracy"; if you ask me, it would seem that there's more in common between violation of intellectual property rights and stealing than violation of intellectual property rights and criminal violence on the high seas. Show nested quote +I don't either, it is stealing, its just easy as fuck and free. It makes perfect sense to do it. I have limited funds and want to "own" much more media than I can afford. So I steal digital copies of it and don't give a fuck about who doesn't receive revenues because of it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact most people aren't comfortable with admitting they are doing something immoral. Taking someone's creations without paying them or the rightful owner for it is wrong. It's just way too easy not to do it.
Yay rational behavior! See, this I can understand. Thank you, sir, for being truthful, or dare I say, frank! Show nested quote + I'm kinda amazed at all the straight edges on this web site, must be nice having all that money.
Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website.
It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
|
I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART.
|
It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"?
|
Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website.
Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills.
|
On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"?
I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong.
You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart.
|
On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"? I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong. You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart.
Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands.
Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills.
Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway.
|
On August 12 2012 02:26 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"? I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong. You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart. Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands. Show nested quote +Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills. Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway.
Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, how you choose to define internet piracy has no bearing whatsoever. You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. Your point is based entirely on subjective opinions regarding filesharing, and is thus worthless. If you want to be taken seriously, do your research, use facts, and avoid embellishments and misrepresentations. And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example.
The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. When people say things like "but it IS stealing", the implication is that those who correctly refer to it as copyright infringement, and correct those who don't, are trying to weasel themselves out of taking responsibility for their actions, which is blatantly untrue, at least based on that action alone.
If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here.
If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject.
|
On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote: I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents.
It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work.
Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway.
|
Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant
Nor should they be. You still haven't addressed my point, that "internet piracy" isn't piracy anymore than it is stealing.
You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better.
No one is redefining anything, not legally. In terms of parlance, who are you to judge?
And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example.
How so? You keep saying this but I don't see how I've used this "incorrect terminology" that you keep accusing me of.
The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet.
Ironic, since much of this thread is random persons 1 through 1727711 complaining about how wrong the law is.
If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here.
A better example would be not going on trial for premeditated murder for running over someone while drunk - the act being much less severe than the charge, but not entirely dissimilar.
If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject.
I'm not fundamentally mistaken.
|
On August 12 2012 02:42 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:26 Warlock40 wrote:On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"? I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong. You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart. Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands. Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills. Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway. Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, how you choose to define internet piracy has no bearing whatsoever. You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. Your point is based entirely on subjective opinions regarding filesharing, and is thus worthless. If you want to be taken seriously, do your research, use facts, and avoid embellishments and misrepresentations. And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example. The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. When people say things like "but it IS stealing", the implication is that those who correctly refer to it as copyright infringement, and correct those who don't, are trying to weasel themselves out of taking responsibility for their actions, which is blatantly untrue, at least based on that action alone. If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here. If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject.
Piracy is theft in that sense that you are "stealing" somebody's intellectual property and distributing it without that person's permission. It may not fit the legal definition of theft, but from a moral standpoint it comes extremely close.
|
On August 12 2012 03:01 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:42 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:26 Warlock40 wrote:On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"? I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong. You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart. Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands. Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills. Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway. Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, how you choose to define internet piracy has no bearing whatsoever. You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. Your point is based entirely on subjective opinions regarding filesharing, and is thus worthless. If you want to be taken seriously, do your research, use facts, and avoid embellishments and misrepresentations. And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example. The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. When people say things like "but it IS stealing", the implication is that those who correctly refer to it as copyright infringement, and correct those who don't, are trying to weasel themselves out of taking responsibility for their actions, which is blatantly untrue, at least based on that action alone. If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here. If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject. Piracy is theft in that sense that you are "stealing" somebody's intellectual property and distributing it without that person's permission. It may not fit the legal definition of theft, but from a moral standpoint it comes extremely close.
And when they take down your art which you purposefully distributed?
|
On August 12 2012 03:00 Warlock40 wrote:Nor should they be. You still haven't addressed my point, that "internet piracy" isn't piracy anymore than it is stealing. Show nested quote +You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. No one is redefining anything, not legally. In terms of parlance, who are you to judge? Show nested quote +And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example. How so? You keep saying this but I don't see how I've used this "incorrect terminology" that you keep accusing me of. Show nested quote +The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. Ironic, since much of this thread is random persons 1 through 1727711 complaining about how wrong the law is. Show nested quote +If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here. A better example would be not going on trial for premeditated murder for running over someone while drunk - the act being much less severe than the charge, but not entirely dissimilar. Show nested quote +If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject. I'm not fundamentally mistaken.
You know perfectly well that internet piracy in no way pertains to actual seafaring pirates, it was a cute moniker that was adopted by the filesharing community as a brand of sorts. The fact that copyright infringement resembles stealing more than plundering ships on the high seas is apparent to anyone with a brain, and completely beside the point.
I judge you based on the merits of your argument. It has very little. Again, I infer no personal opinions into what I wrote. If I had, you could judge me on that just as well. I said you were factually incorrect, which is true. Anything else is of no interest.
What people think of the law is, wait for it, also irrelevant! Until it's changed, it is what it is, period, end of discussion, basta etc. It is also binary, you are either wrong or right. You are wrong.
Your example is poor, murder and manslaughter involve more or less the same act in different circumstances. Stealing and copyright infringement are not nearly as closely related in legal terms(again, the only terms that hold any weight).
If you are not mistaken you are willfully obtuse.
|
On August 12 2012 03:01 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:42 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:26 Warlock40 wrote:On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.
I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.
Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.
So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"? I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong. You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart. Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands. Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills. Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway. Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, how you choose to define internet piracy has no bearing whatsoever. You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. Your point is based entirely on subjective opinions regarding filesharing, and is thus worthless. If you want to be taken seriously, do your research, use facts, and avoid embellishments and misrepresentations. And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example. The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. When people say things like "but it IS stealing", the implication is that those who correctly refer to it as copyright infringement, and correct those who don't, are trying to weasel themselves out of taking responsibility for their actions, which is blatantly untrue, at least based on that action alone. If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here. If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject. Piracy is theft in that sense that you are "stealing" somebody's intellectual property and distributing it without that person's permission. It may not fit the legal definition of theft, but from a moral standpoint it comes extremely close.
Moral standpoints are utterly devoid of any interest or relevance in this case. Demonstrable facts matter, not opinions.
|
On August 12 2012 03:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote: I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents. It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work. Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway.
Interested about the middle paragraph. The same can be said about companies like amazon. Should vendors like amazon go away as well?
|
You know perfectly well that internet piracy in no way pertains to actual seafaring pirates, it was a cute moniker that was adopted by the filesharing community as a brand of sorts.
If you have the right to brand copyright infringement with a completely unrelated term, I don't see how you can justify preventing others from doing the same.
The fact that copyright infringement resembles stealing more than plundering ships on the high seas is apparent to anyone with a brain, and completely beside the point.
No, that is the point.
I judge you based on the merits of your argument. It has very little.
It's a simple argument. Theft is no more related to copyright infringement than piracy is.
What people think of the law is, wait for it, also irrelevant! Until it's changed, it is what it is, period, end of discussion, basta etc. It is also binary, you are either wrong or right. You are wrong.
My impression has always been that the "filesharing community" as you put it has always been free in spirit and against the establishment, so it's nice to see that you respect "the law" so much. But you of all people should know that there should never be an "end of discussion" regarding law. And it's not as binary as you'd think.
Your example is poor, murder and manslaughter involve more or less the same act in different circumstances. Stealing and copyright infringement are not nearly as closely related in legal terms(again, the only terms that hold any weight).
It is most definitely not the same act, unless by "same act" you mean "same outcome", which would bring us right back to "copyright infringement =/= theft".
|
On August 12 2012 03:27 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 03:00 Djzapz wrote:On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote: I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents. It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work. Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway. Interested about the middle paragraph. The same can be said about companies like amazon. Should vendors like amazon go away as well? The same cannot be said for Amazon at all, they're the perfect minimalist middle man for sales. You can be sure they don't take the same massive cut producers and publishers take. We still need those platforms because they're reasonably prices and like torrents, they give a platform for the artists to be heard and discovered. I never said that we should abolish everything that stands between customers and artists. Artists should always be allowed to decide how to market themselves, but luckily because of the Internet, things are getting better.
|
On August 12 2012 03:30 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +You know perfectly well that internet piracy in no way pertains to actual seafaring pirates, it was a cute moniker that was adopted by the filesharing community as a brand of sorts. If you have the right to brand copyright infringement with a completely unrelated term, I don't see how you can justify preventing others from doing the same. Show nested quote +The fact that copyright infringement resembles stealing more than plundering ships on the high seas is apparent to anyone with a brain, and completely beside the point. No, that is the point. It's a simple argument. Theft is no more related to copyright infringement than piracy is. Show nested quote +What people think of the law is, wait for it, also irrelevant! Until it's changed, it is what it is, period, end of discussion, basta etc. It is also binary, you are either wrong or right. You are wrong. My impression has always been that the "filesharing community" as you put it has always been free in spirit and against the establishment, so it's nice to see that you respect "the law" so much. But you of all people should know that there should never be an "end of discussion" regarding law. And it's not as binary as you'd think. Show nested quote +Your example is poor, murder and manslaughter involve more or less the same act in different circumstances. Stealing and copyright infringement are not nearly as closely related in legal terms(again, the only terms that hold any weight). It is most definitely not the same act, unless by "same act" you mean "same outcome", which would bring us right back to "copyright infringement =/= theft".
If the whole point was to prove filesharing is more akin to stealing than actual piracy, then...congrats? I mean, I agree with you and everything, it just seems like kind of a superfluous point to make.
Also, you're attributing opinions to me that I have never held or expressed. I did not label the filesharing community pirates, at least no one asked for my vote on the topic, nor am I a part of it. I have no personal vested interest in it.
As for the law, you are correct that it is often open to interpretation. In this case however, the cases are distinct, and not open for a popular vote.
I should have worded the murder/manslaughter argument better, apologies. Same outcome is more appropriate, which again would make it fundamentally different from copyright infringement vs stealing. In the case of murder and manslaughter, someone ends up dead in both scenarios. In the case of stealing, a piece of property is permanently removed, whereas in the case of copyright infringement it is copied. Different outcomes.
|
If the whole point was to prove filesharing is more akin to stealing than actual piracy, then...congrats? I mean, I agree with you and everything, it just seems like kind of a superfluous point to make.
Then surely you cannot object if people on high horses decide to equate copyright infringement with theft, so long as they understand the legal differences.
Also, you're attributing opinions to me that I have never held or expressed. I did not label the filesharing community pirates, at least no one asked for my vote on the topic, nor am I a part of it. I have no personal vested interest in it.
You've referred to copyright infringement as piracy in your posts several times.
should have worded the murder/manslaughter argument better, apologies. Same outcome is more appropriate, which again would make it fundamentally different from copyright infringement vs stealing. In the case of murder and manslaughter, someone ends up dead in both scenarios. In the case of stealing, a piece of property is permanently removed, whereas in the case of copyright infringement it is copied. Different outcomes.
Fair enough, but they are different outcomes only in degree. As far as the perpetrator is affected, the outcome is the same - he gets something that he didn't pay for. This is what those opposed to file sharing emphasize. Those in favour of file sharing emphasize the opposite aspect - how the "victim" (justifications against evil corporations aside) is affected. I've seen the statistics, I understand that torrented copies don't correspond to lost sales on a 1:1 basis. But the opposite, that torrents don't affect sales at all, is no more truthful. Perhaps a better example would be the difference between assault and murder.
|
On August 12 2012 03:56 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +If the whole point was to prove filesharing is more akin to stealing than actual piracy, then...congrats? I mean, I agree with you and everything, it just seems like kind of a superfluous point to make. Then surely you cannot object if people on high horses decide to equate copyright infringement with theft, so long as they understand the legal differences. Show nested quote +Also, you're attributing opinions to me that I have never held or expressed. I did not label the filesharing community pirates, at least no one asked for my vote on the topic, nor am I a part of it. I have no personal vested interest in it. You've referred to copyright infringement as piracy in your posts several times. Show nested quote + should have worded the murder/manslaughter argument better, apologies. Same outcome is more appropriate, which again would make it fundamentally different from copyright infringement vs stealing. In the case of murder and manslaughter, someone ends up dead in both scenarios. In the case of stealing, a piece of property is permanently removed, whereas in the case of copyright infringement it is copied. Different outcomes. Fair enough, but they are different outcomes only in degree. As far as the perpetrator is affected, the outcome is the same - he gets something that he didn't pay for. This is what those opposed to file sharing emphasize. Those in favour of file sharing emphasize the opposite aspect - how the "victim" (justifications against evil corporations aside) is affected. I've seen the statistics, I understand that torrented copies don't correspond to lost sales on a 1:1 basis. But the opposite, that torrents don't affect sales at all, is no more truthful. Perhaps a better example would be the difference between assault and murder.
People may refer to copyright infringement in any way they please, freedom of speech is cool like that.
Calling it piracy is a result of habit and I daresay social conditioning at this point, it's just that the term is so firmly ingrained by now I use it without thinking. What I meant was that I was not involved in coining the term from the beginning, I merely adopted it because it was how everyone around me referred to it. Probably could have worded that better as well.
On the final paragraph I suppose I can sort of agree, but as you pointed out, it depends largely on the angle of approach. And currently, the law sees from the perspective of the victim, not the perpetrator. Regarding the correlation between torrenting and lost sales, I have never disputed that.
Ultimately my argument was that calling copyright infringement stealing is not merely a matter of semantics, but of actual distinct misrepresentation.
|
Ultimately my argument was that calling copyright infringement stealing is not merely a matter of semantics, but of actual distinct misrepresentation.
Well, I can't argue with that, because calling it stealing is indeed misrepresentation. But because of the way language can change over time to adapt to new circumstances, I don't think it's fair to say that people are wrong to draw parallels between some instances of copyright infringement and theft.
People may refer to copyright infringement in any way they please, freedom of speech is cool like that.
This is my view.
I guess what we can agree on is that opponents of file sharing shouldn't rely on hyperbolic metaphors about right and wrong to express their argument.
|
On August 12 2012 04:36 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +People may refer to copyright infringement in any way they please, freedom of speech is cool like that. This is my view. I guess what we can agree on is that opponents of file sharing shouldn't rely on hyperbolic metaphors about right and wrong to express their argument.
Indeed, and partly because there is no need to. Their ulterior motive has always been to assert or imply that filesharing is a criminal activity, in which case calling it copyright infringement is every bit as viable as calling it stealing.
|
On August 12 2012 03:37 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 03:27 Zocat wrote:On August 12 2012 03:00 Djzapz wrote:On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote: I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents. It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work. Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway. Interested about the middle paragraph. The same can be said about companies like amazon. Should vendors like amazon go away as well? The same cannot be said for Amazon at all, they're the perfect minimalist middle man for sales. You can be sure they don't take the same massive cut producers and publishers take. We still need those platforms because they're reasonably prices and like torrents, they give a platform for the artists to be heard and discovered. I never said that we should abolish everything that stands between customers and artists. Artists should always be allowed to decide how to market themselves, but luckily because of the Internet, things are getting better.
How much is amazon taking for just shipping around a product? And how much is no longer okay for such a service?
Edit: not only limited to music
|
Another blow to free music T.T. But hey i still have kickasstorrent hehe
|
|
On August 12 2012 05:56 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 03:37 Djzapz wrote:On August 12 2012 03:27 Zocat wrote:On August 12 2012 03:00 Djzapz wrote:On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote: I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.
New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.
File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)
If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART. I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents. It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work. Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway. Interested about the middle paragraph. The same can be said about companies like amazon. Should vendors like amazon go away as well? The same cannot be said for Amazon at all, they're the perfect minimalist middle man for sales. You can be sure they don't take the same massive cut producers and publishers take. We still need those platforms because they're reasonably prices and like torrents, they give a platform for the artists to be heard and discovered. I never said that we should abolish everything that stands between customers and artists. Artists should always be allowed to decide how to market themselves, but luckily because of the Internet, things are getting better. How much is amazon taking for just shipping around a product? And how much is no longer okay for such a service? Edit: not only limited to music That's besides the point, Amazon is a choice, it can easily be avoided, there are other distributors. Some artists sell their stuff directly through their website and they make good money.
The problem is that until recently, publishers and producers were absolutely mandatory and there was no getting around them. If you weren't signed and willing to give away a massive portion of your income to suits, then you were just not going to make money off of your produce. It made sense back then, it makes sense now for some people, but overall what I'm saying is that we should in fact give grief to those corporate dicks who want to keep their hands on a market that's slipping away from them because they're no longer needed.
On August 12 2012 06:17 Warlock40 wrote: Amazon shipping is very, very good. These are the rates: He means what cut does Amazon take from the seller of a digital song or album.
|
torrent sites need to be left alone, come on
|
ah fuck, demonoid was the best site to test out music production software. The suits are annoying.
|
|
|
|
|