PDA

View Full Version : Pirating Stuff

Durai
08-22-2011, 08:53 PM
Movies, games, music, popcorn. Yup, nowadays you can get anything at no cost on the interwebs except a few viruses here and there. What thinks you?

limabeanactuary
08-22-2011, 08:55 PM
Let me know how one pirates popcorn.

I do not want to lose this deal! Thanks!

Durai
08-22-2011, 08:59 PM
Let me know how one pirates popcorn.

I do not want to lose this deal! Thanks!

Urban dictionary says "What starts with P and ends with ORN?" when you search for popcorn.

Though apparently there is free actual :popcorn: online as well:

http://movies.yahoo.com/popcorn

Sindel
08-22-2011, 09:22 PM
Well it is certainly not stealing.

andyphillips
08-22-2011, 09:36 PM
http://www.edupics.com/pirate-t8459.jpg

^ Me.

smekta
08-22-2011, 09:41 PM
Since we are talking about digital media, the only way it can be considered theft is if I pirate a movie instead of buying it. But there are numerous movies that I would only watch if they were free. In fact, I would watch very few movies if I had to pay to see them, which means all those projections about the cost of piracy are a load of crap.

Woodrow
08-22-2011, 09:43 PM
You left out "Don't think it's wrong, too lazy to do it."

asdfasdf
08-22-2011, 09:45 PM
Since we are talking about digital media, the only way it can be considered theft is if I pirate a movie instead of buying it. But there are numerous movies that I would only watch if they were free. In fact, I would watch very few movies if I had to pay to see them, which means all those projections about the cost of piracy are a load of crap.

I mean, I like to justify it to myself on these grounds too, but it's simply not true, without the conduit of free content how can you really say what you'd be willing to pay for?

It's a free rider type issue, it's on the edge of stealing, I'm not depriving anyone of a product exactly, but am in a way since I'm spending less than I would otherwise on content.

I decided a while ago to simply forgo broadcast TV and download stuff / buy DVD's as I desired. In general I don't find movies worth the hassle to download as there's so little content per file (similar to songs), but TV is out months ahead of time, and for a day's download I get a few weeks worth of TV, so it's really hard to say no to.

08-22-2011, 09:47 PM
Since we are talking about digital media, the only way it can be considered theft is if I pirate a movie instead of buying it. But there are numerous movies that I would only watch if they were free. In fact, I would watch very few movies if I had to pay to see them, which means all those projections about the cost of piracy are a load of crap.
or if you hacked into the movie studio and deleted their copy on the way out.

or less ridiculously, started selling the DLed copy

Sindel
08-22-2011, 09:48 PM
Since we are talking about digital media, the only way it can be considered theft is if I pirate a movie instead of buying it. But there are numerous movies that I would only watch if they were free. In fact, I would watch very few movies if I had to pay to see them, which means all those projections about the cost of piracy are a load of crap.

:iatp: This is why it's not theft on an individual basis.

Any projection on the "cost of piracy" can't simply multiply the price by the number of users who pirate the product. They would have to estimate what proportion of users would buy the product when they couldn't download it.

Blue Man
08-22-2011, 09:48 PM
I pirated a bunch of songs off of albums I bought on cassette in the 80's. Since I already purchased a copy of the music, I don't feel anyone was stolen from, although legally I suppose it would be hard for me to prove I ever owned The Outfield's "Play Deep"

Sindel
08-22-2011, 09:56 PM
There are some interesting things about piracy, like this little jewel here (http://www.humblebundle.com/).

Since people get to choose how much they pay for it, down to a penny, this bundle that allegedly would have sold for $80 on stores went for an average of$5.82 online.

And even with that, more than a quarter of downloaders pirated it outright.

smekta
08-22-2011, 10:03 PM
I mean, I like to justify it to myself on these grounds too, but it's simply not true, without the conduit of free content how can you really say what you'd be willing to pay for?

Because when I cant stream something online, I dont go out and buy it. Honestly, it's really not that difficult to say what you'd end up buying. Most stuff that I watch is just something to pass the time anyway.

asdfasdf
08-22-2011, 10:08 PM
Because when I cant stream something online, I dont go out and buy it. Honestly, it's really not that difficult to say what you'd end up buying. Most stuff that I watch is just something to pass the time anyway.

Exactly, so if there was no ability to stream at all you'd need something to pass the time, and so you'd be willing to pay for it.

smekta
08-22-2011, 10:12 PM
Exactly, so if there was no ability to stream at all you'd need something to pass the time, and so you'd be willing to pay for it.

Id browse the ao, youtube, blogs, read books, and so on, instead of paying for a movie that I dont have that much of a desire to watch.

Jasper07734
08-22-2011, 10:30 PM
I don't want to go to Federal PMITA Prison, so I don't do it.

r. mutt
08-22-2011, 10:36 PM
Any projection on the "cost of piracy" can't simply multiply the price by the number of users who pirate the product. They would have to estimate what proportion of users would buy the product when they couldn't download it.

Exactly. Thank goodness nobody here considers calculations of expected value based on probability to be "real money" or meaningful.

Sindel
08-22-2011, 11:58 PM
Exactly. Thank goodness nobody here considers calculations of expected value based on probability to be "real money" or meaningful.

Not what I said. We're discussing the ethics of piracy, not whether or not it hurts most of the entertainment industry.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 12:12 AM
how can piracy ever be considered anything but unethical? you're getting something you're not paying for when you should be.

QMO
08-23-2011, 12:17 AM
Let me know how one pirates popcorn.I think that's a question that Monsanto has answered more than once.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 12:21 AM
how can piracy ever be considered anything but unethical? you're getting something you're not paying for when you should be.
Like UM/UIM coverage in New Mexico.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 12:23 AM
there are so many free ways to get free music--http://elbo.ws is a search engine for music blogs. this used to be shady, but Blogspot adn other blogging platforms purged themselves of unauthorized music blogs.

But this is only good for fans of indie music. IF you find mainstream music on these blogs, most likely not legal. I have a few go to music blogs where I get some quality music.

remilard
08-23-2011, 12:34 AM
Not what I said. We're discussing the ethics of piracy, not whether or not it hurts most of the entertainment industry.

Where I come from, hurting people is unethical.

08-23-2011, 12:57 AM
During his stint at EMI, Merrill (COO of EMI Records) profiled the behavior of LimeWire users and discovered something rather interesting. Those same file-sharing “thieves” were also iTunes’ biggest spenders.

“That’s not theft, that’s try-before-you-buy marketing and we weren’t even paying for it… so it makes sense to sue them,” Merrill said, while undoubtedly rolling his eyes.

That same “try-before-you-buy” discovery was echoed in another study we reported on last week which found that users of pirate sites, including the recently-busted Kino.to, buy more DVDs, visit the cinema more often and on average spend more at the box office than their ‘honest’ counterparts.

word.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 01:08 AM
Where I come from, hurting people is unethical.
Where I come from, hurting industries that actively campaign for legislation that damages the public good is ethical.

Oh, and Durai you can put another one down in the unlisted "Don't think it's wrong, too lazy risk averse to do it." bucket.

Sparktz
08-23-2011, 01:28 AM
how can piracy ever be considered anything but unethical? you're getting something you're not paying for when you should be.

I couldn't agree more. All of the people doing it must have some twisted view of ethics. It looks like all of our actuarial training is doing a lot of good..

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 01:49 AM
I couldn't agree more. All of the people doing it must have some twisted view of ethics. It looks like all of our actuarial training is doing a lot of good..
You do realize that the corporate line about ethics always and unquestioningly conforming to the law is total BS, right? Sometimes the law is wrong. Are there really that many people who voluntarily turn their brains off when it comes time to build a value system?

Corporate ethics training is about managing the company's risk. If you actually think it's teaching you about right and wrong I've got a lobotomy to sell you. If you value your job, you will do these things. That's the deal. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course they prefer if you blindly accept the training as overwriting any independent thought you might have about your values because that makes compliance that much more manageable. However it's perfectly possible to comply with corporate ethics in everything job related and hold [some of] those values in complete contempt.

That's not to say that copyright is an area where I feel inclined to violate policy. I just don't see it as an issue of fundamental values. It is a cultural norm that happens to be given the force of law. I don't much care for cultural norms in general and laws only determine the incentives I face, not my values.

andyphillips
08-23-2011, 02:02 AM
I'll make sure I stop reading books at Borders before I buy them, apparently that's unethical.

Mr. Micro
08-23-2011, 02:05 AM
I'll make sure I stop reading books at Borders before I buy them, apparently that's unethical.

If you're still going into Borders, it probably is unethical. I thought they went bankrupt and closed down.

Mr. Micro
08-23-2011, 02:08 AM
Where does the library fit into this conversation?

Why is it ok for me to go to the library and check out a CD/movie, then return it? But I can't download that same CD, listen to it, then delete it.

andyphillips
08-23-2011, 02:10 AM
If you're still going into Borders, it probably is unethical. I thought they went bankrupt and closed down.

Might be the case, I haven't been to one in a while. Was just the easiest example I could think of.

EDIT: Yup, they did.

Sindel
08-23-2011, 03:20 AM
Where I come from, hurting people is unethical.

You yourself are not hurting anyone when you download something. Piracy as a whole is hurting an industry as a whole. You yourself are not directly depriving a company of any property they currently possess so it's not stealing.

I won't get into the ethical vs. unethical debate though... just the semantic one.

limabeanactuary
08-23-2011, 05:20 AM
FYI, if I find any of you are pirating TIA videos, I'll punch you.

If the first wasn't stealing, then I guess the second isn't assault and battery (at least, not the way I do it).

Sloop John B
08-23-2011, 09:06 AM
It'd be interesting to see what people's views are on it by age group. I figure it's largely young vs. old.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 09:17 AM
FYI, if I find any of you are pirating TIA videos, I'll punch you.

If the first wasn't stealing, then I guess the second isn't assault and battery (at least, not the way I do it).

That's a great example. If it's not unethical to pirate from the big studios/labels, then why is not unethical to pirate from small businesses like TIA?

It would seem to me that it's either always unethical or it's always not.

limabeanactuary
08-23-2011, 09:20 AM
It'd be interesting to see what people's views are on it by age group. I figure it's largely young vs. old.

Or perhaps have electronic IP they'd like to protect....

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 09:23 AM
That's a great example. If it's not unethical to pirate from the big studios/labels, then why is not unethical to pirate from small businesses like TIA?

It would seem to me that it's either always unethical or it's always not.
If 1-1=0 then \infty - \infty = 0 too.

"Piracy" is a catch-all term for a lot of different behaviors, with different costs, counterparties, and risks. Each case has very different ethical and moral implications. If your ethical methodology consists of attaching a vague term to a category of behaviors, and then refusing to acknowledge any distinction between those behaviors, well there's not much to say to you about how to think through these things.

If a plant in my garden is cross-pollenated by patented GM pollen, I will not destroy the seeds. I might even be inclined to give them or *gasp* sell them to somebody. Booga.

Mog
08-23-2011, 09:23 AM
Young here.

For music, (I think) there is a trend toward free music, and more expensive/frequent shows. When companies can no longer turn a decent profit on music, the digital form will become more and more prominent at a lower cost until free digital downloads are more common. I encourage this trend.

Movies/TV shows are a much more ambiguous area. I definitely see way more of these that I would not normally watch because I can get them at no cost. I still buy movies (theater as well as renting/buying some hard copies), and I have cable, so it is very hard for me to estimate how much money I am saving (i.e. how much companies are losing) by downloading and watching these types of things for free. I am not sure what the end-game here is. If content is worth buying, I usually buy it (and sometimes the free experience motivates a purchase), so maybe companies should step up their game?

Ethics have nothing to do with it (anymore). It is so prevalent now... that bridge was crossed long ago. What's left is how to deal with it. I don't think legal action/reversing the trend is possible, I just think all industries have to adapt. They will.

Popcorn, well... I would never buy popcorn. Free popcorn is the only kind of popcorn for me!

oedipus rex
08-23-2011, 09:26 AM
It'd be interesting to see what people's views are on it by age group. I figure it's largely young vs. old.
that and income level. probably gender too, as in more males pirate than females.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 09:31 AM
Where I come from, hurting industries that actively campaign for legislation that damages the public good is ethical.

Oh, and Durai you can put another one down in the unlisted "Don't think it's wrong, too lazy risk averse to do it." bucket.

I totally agree with you that RIAA and the MPAA are parasites and damage the public good. Furthermore, their efforts to combat piracy are over reaching.

However, that does not give anyone the right to steal from them.

It's cliché, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

If 1-1=0 then \infty - \infty = 0 too.

"Piracy" is a catch-all term for a lot of different behaviors, with different costs, counterparties, and risks. Each case has very different ethical and moral implications. If your ethical methodology consists of attaching a vague term to a category of behaviors, and then refusing to acknowledge any distinction between those behaviors, well there's not much to say to you about how to think through these things.

If a plant in my garden is cross-pollenated by patented GM pollen, I will not destroy the seeds. Booga.

I agree with you that piracy is a catch-all term, and there are different things that are labeled piracy. For example, RIAA will call me a pirate if I rip my own CDs onto my ipod. Also, an example, I am an extensive reader of audio books from the library. I rip them onto my ipod and listen to them, then delete them. I suppose that would be considered piracy also by the publishers.

But in both examples, I am not getting something for free that I would have otherwise paid for (hope that makes sense).

So, in my mind, my definition of the "unethical piracy" are those situations where you are getting something for free illegally*, when you really should be paying for them.

I'm sure my definition is not rigorous enough, but it makes sense to me. :shrug:

the BS method
08-23-2011, 09:39 AM
I love piracy. It is one of the extremely few areas were the strength of the people has increased over the past 100 years.

Piracy actually helps the people that need it. Small musicians become big.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 09:42 AM
I totally agree with you that RIAA and the MPAA are parasites and damage the public good. Furthermore, their efforts to combat piracy are over reaching.

However, that does not give anyone the right to steal from them.

It's cliché, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with you that piracy is a catch-all term, and there are different things that are labeled piracy. For example, RIAA will call me a pirate if I rip my own CDs onto my ipod. Also, an example, I am an extensive reader of audio books from the library. I rip them onto my ipod and listen to them, then delete them. I suppose that would be considered piracy also by the publishers.

But in both examples, I am not getting something for free that I would have otherwise paid for (hope that makes sense).

So, in my mind, my definition of the "unethical piracy" are those situations where you are getting something for free illegally*, when you really should be paying for them.

I'm sure my definition is not rigorous enough, but it makes sense to me. :shrug:
You do realize that you are admittedly a devout "pirate", right? You have chosen to evaluate your actions using a framework which is contrary to that prescribed by the law. How does it feel?

limabeanactuary
08-23-2011, 09:46 AM
I love piracy. It is one of the extremely few areas were the strength of the people has increased over the past 100 years.

Piracy actually helps the people that need it. Small musicians become big.

Small musicians can put their music up for free if they wish. That's not piracy.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 09:49 AM
You do realize that you are admittedly a devout "pirate", right? You have chosen to evaluate your actions using a framework which is contrary to that prescribed by the law. How does it feel?

It feels good. na na na na, na na na I knew that it would

(aside : is it na na na na or da da da da)?

Seriously, though as I and someone said, law does not always = ethics. In canada it was legal to take my friend's cd and rip it and keep the copy (until a few years ago). Does that make it ethical?

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 09:50 AM
Small musicians can put their music up for free if they wish. That's not piracy.

They do--see my elbo.ws post earlier. That's why we have a thriving indie music scene now.

the BS method
08-23-2011, 09:50 AM
Small musicians can put their music up for free if they wish. That's not piracy.

Musicians are too hipster to know what's good for them.

Piracy is their invisible guiding hand.

snikelfritz
08-23-2011, 09:51 AM
IMHO the rise of (crappy) reality shows is a result of piracy, you can't watch them later, you need to watch them live, so they're better from the TV station's perspective.

I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that piracy will gradually be reduced by measure like bandwidth throttling, and the French banning of ability to get internet for repeat offenders. These trends actually encourage me to grab more now while the grabbing's free. I have lots of stuff I've downloaded on spec for later that may never end up watching. I just hope formats will always be backwards compatible with newer versions of players.

the BS method
08-23-2011, 09:53 AM
IMHO the rise of (crappy) reality shows is a result of piracy, you can't watch them later, you need to watch them live, so they're better from the TV station's perspective.

I don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that piracy will gradually be reduced by measure like bandwidth throttling, and the French banning of ability to get internet for repeat offenders. These trends actually encourage me to grab more now while the grabbing's free. I have lots of stuff I've downloaded on spec for later that may never end up watching. I just hope formats will always be backwards compatible with newer versions of players.

This is all completely ridiculous, you realize that?

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 09:54 AM
It's sad, actually that gov'ts and industry go to such drastic measures. there have been numerous studies, even those funded by the industries themselves, that show that piracy increases sales.

In terms of movies, we see studios using more 3d and big effects to try to make the cinema experience more worthwhile.

But in music, there isn't really that kind of option. It's interesting, then, that it is the established artists that are most vocal against piracy (Metallica, Prince, etc), whereas the up and comers don't mind it much, because it builds a following and increases exposure and touring revenues.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 09:59 AM
It feels good. na na na na, na na na I knew that it would

(aside : is it na na na na or da da da da)?

Seriously, though as I and someone said, law does not always = ethics.That someone was me. ;) I didn't meant hat it was necessarily a bad thing. I thought you were arguing against all "piracy", so I was just making an observation. I may have been wrong in my read of your post. That's not a bad thing.
In canada it was legal to take my friend's cd and rip it and keep the copy (until a few years ago). Does that make it ethical?
That doesn't make it ethical. It may or may not be, but what the law says is not necessarily relevant. It depends on how compromised the lawmakers are, and on whether the society as a whole has values that are worth caring about.

remilard
08-23-2011, 10:10 AM
You yourself are not hurting anyone when you download something. Piracy as a whole is hurting an industry as a whole. You yourself are not directly depriving a company of any property they currently possess so it's not stealing.

I won't get into the ethical vs. unethical debate though... just the semantic one.

Given that the bolded is substantially an argument that participating in the London riots, or for that matter the Schutzstaffel is not hurting anyone, it is probably best that you stay out of the ethics debate.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 10:18 AM
Given that the bolded is substantially an argument that participating in the London riots, or for that matter the Schutzstaffel is not hurting anyone, it is probably best that you stay out of the ethics debate.
51=PC(Godwin=true)

NotUrAvgXBar
08-23-2011, 10:18 AM
Sharing isn't unethical.

Pseudolus
08-23-2011, 10:18 AM
I want my... I want my MP3s

BG5150
08-23-2011, 10:19 AM
I'll make sure I stop reading books at Borders before I buy them, apparently that's unethical.

The think about reading books in Borders a bookstore is that the writer and publisher has already been paid (when the bookstore purchased the book).

So if you read the book in the store, you are depriving the merchant of possible sales. But, if the merchant allows the process, I can't see it as unethical.

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 10:23 AM
The think about reading books in Borders a bookstore is that the writer and publisher has already been paid (when the bookstore purchased the book).

So if you read the book in the store, you are depriving the merchant of possible sales. But, if the merchant allows the process, I can't see it as unethical.
Bookstores don't really purchase books. Three words: reserves against returns. The book industry is essentially a consignment operation.

BG5150
08-23-2011, 10:24 AM
You yourself are not hurting anyone when you download something. Piracy as a whole is hurting an industry as a whole. You yourself are not directly depriving a company of any property they currently possess so it's not stealing.

You are not stealing physical property, but intellectual property.

When you illegally download a movie and watch it, you have experienced the intellectual output of the "product" for which the creator(s) expect and deserve to be paid.

It doesn't matter whether or not you would have otherwise purchased a DvD or digital download. You have experienced the product, and have the potential to continually experience the product, that you have not paid for.

People who argue the "I'm not hurting anyone" line are many of the same people who argued that "cheater boxes" for cable didn't hurt anyone, and "I'm not stealing HBO, because I wouldn't have subscribed anyway."

snikelfritz
08-23-2011, 10:26 AM
This is all completely ridiculous, you realize that?

You do realize that simply calling an argument ridiculous does not make is so, you realize that?

Reality TV is much cheaper to produce, and doesn't have re-sale value later. Big budget programs can theoretically make more on the back end / re-watch, but it doesn't work out of people are downloading it. If there was no ability to download it would affect those dynamics.

Also, France has a three strikes type rule for people uploading torrents, after three warnings you're ISP by law has to cut you off, and you can't sign up with another one. Implement a similar system here and after a few years it would be much harder to get stuff than it is now.

remilard
08-23-2011, 10:30 AM
51=PC(Godwin=true)

I thought that was a pretty good comparison to the argument that no individual is responsible for what the group does. Given that you chose not to dispute it on its merits, I assume that you agree.

Sindel
08-23-2011, 10:33 AM
Given that the bolded is substantially an argument that participating in the London riots, or for that matter the Schutzstaffel is not hurting anyone, it is probably best that you stay out of the ethics debate.

Neither of your analogies are valid. If you participate in or support the things you mentioned, that is unethical, because you are supporting and improving unethical institutions. If you pirate something, you are not "supporting piracy". Piracy isn't even an institution to be "supported".

As such, the actions have to be evaluated at the individual level, not the aggregate.

But it is interesting to note that in general I have steered clear of the ethics debate. I think it's to some degree a personal evaluation. My main claim in this thread is that it is not "stealing".

It is also interesting to note that no one has mentioned the important point that the music industry is not "people". Ethical and moral behavior strictly relates to actions toward the people around you. So is hurting the music industry unethical? Not necessarily. Is taking advantage of another person's intellectual property without prior approval unethical? Okay then you have more of a case.

bloodninja
08-23-2011, 10:35 AM
Small musicians can put their music up for free if they wish. That's not piracy.

I bet 90%+ of small musicians use pirated software to create their music.

ShakeNBakes
08-23-2011, 10:37 AM
FYI, if I find any of you are pirating TIA videos, I'll punch you.

If the first wasn't stealing, then I guess the second isn't assault and battery (at least, not the way I do it).

that's because you hit like a girl.

NotUrAvgXBar
08-23-2011, 10:37 AM
You are not stealing physical property, but intellectual property.

When you illegally download a movie and watch it, you have experienced the intellectual output of the "product" for which the creator(s) expect and deserve to be paid.

It doesn't matter whether or not you would have otherwise purchased a DvD or digital download. You have experienced the product, and have the potential to continually experience the product, that you have not paid for.

People who argue the "I'm not hurting anyone" line are many of the same people who argued that "cheater boxes" for cable didn't hurt anyone, and "I'm not stealing HBO, because I wouldn't have subscribed anyway."

Do you consider it unethical to borrow a DVD from a friend? It seems like that is also a case of experiencing a product without paying for it.

llcooljabe
08-23-2011, 10:38 AM
As such, the actions have to be evaluated at the individual level, not the aggregate.

But it is interesting to note that in general I have steered clear of the ethics debate. I think it's to some degree a personal evaluation.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms...

My main claim in this thread is that it is not "stealing".

Is that because if you call it stealing, then, by definition you are being unethical?

It is also interesting to note that no one has mentioned the important point that the music industry is not "people". Ethical and moral behavior strictly relates to actions toward the people around you. So is hurting the music industry unethical? Not necessarily. Is taking advantage of another person's intellectual property without prior approval unethical? Okay then you have more of a case.

Does it matter that it's an industry/institution? So i take it you have no problem plagiarizing (sp?) because the university is an institution? or cheating on an actuarial exam because the governing bodies are institutions?

you're playing semantics here. HAve you paid for a product that you are expected to pay for? are you downloading it with the intent to not pay for it? If so, you are stealing, and therefore being unethical.

Pseudolus
08-23-2011, 10:38 AM
Neither of your analogies are valid. If you participate in or support the things you mentioned, that is unethical, because you are supporting and improving unethical institutions. If you pirate something, you are not "supporting piracy". Piracy isn't even an institution to be "supported".If you use torrents, though, you are uploading at the same time as you are downloading even if you don't continue to "seed"* when you've dl'd the entire file. Usenet is one-way, but not free (generally?), so your money would go to supporting the existence of such services.

And Idunno why you take issue with referring to a global community of folks using a set of technologies to swap data files as an "institution". Why wouldn't it be one?

*um, that's what they, the pirates, those other not-me people, call it, right?

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 10:40 AM
I thought that was a pretty good comparison to the argument that no individual is responsible for what the group does. Given that you chose not to dispute it on its merits, I assume that you agree.
No you're completely right that the argument is total crap. However tossing in a Nazi association is gratiuitous.

Also there is a credibel case to be made that intellectual property is fundamentally different from physical property. The nature of "harm" is far more abstracted. You have to have a pretty cold-blooded society to have a value system where not purchasing a product is viewed as ethically equivalent (except as a matter of degree) to shooting somebody just because there is "harm".

the BS method
08-23-2011, 10:44 AM
You do realize that simply calling an argument ridiculous does not make is so, you realize that?

Reality TV is much cheaper to produce, and doesn't have re-sale value later. Big budget programs can theoretically make more on the back end / re-watch, but it doesn't work out of people are downloading it. If there was no ability to download it would affect those dynamics.

Also, France has a three strikes type rule for people uploading torrents, after three warnings you're ISP by law has to cut you off, and you can't sign up with another one. Implement a similar system here and after a few years it would be much harder to get stuff than it is now.

I realize the US ain't quite what it used to be, but quit comparing it to France.

Reality TV is big because people are morans and eat it up.

Pseudolus
08-23-2011, 10:46 AM
While I agree that unauthorized copying of files has (to say the least) some ethical implications, I think that the use of the word "stealing" generates more heat than light in this conversation. "Stealing" implies "person X takes item Y away from person Z so that X now has Y and Z does not". Note, please, that I am not adding "so copying is perfectly OK", just that I am objecting to the use of a term that I don't think applies.

(BTW, I still haven't found out - not that I've busted my butt looking - why the term "pirate" came to be applied to unauthorized copying. Doesn't seem to have much in common with the whole "yo ho ho" crowd. According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Piracy.22), though, it's been used that way since at least, wow, 1603. Would have guessed that it was substantially more recent than that.

Sindel
08-23-2011, 10:48 AM
Is that because if you call it stealing, then, by definition you are being unethical?

Yes this is a semantic argument. And no, it is because stealing implies that you're depriving the company (or person or whatever) of property it currently possesses.

Does it matter that it's an industry/institution? So i take it you have no problem plagiarizing (sp?) because the university is an institution? or cheating on an actuarial exam because the governing bodies are institutions?

Yes, I think it does matter. Your analogies are different. On both cases, you are being unethical toward other students by getting an unfair advantage.

You also tend to agree somewhere in writing not to do those things. I don't think people always agree somewhere in writing not to pirate things.

limabeanactuary
08-23-2011, 10:48 AM
that's because you hit like a girl.

yeah, the bruises i leave are purty

the BS method
08-23-2011, 10:51 AM
why is everyone striving for some uniform logic in our totally illogical system?

who the hell cares if some 22 year old kid downloaded a $2600 adobe suite so he could start doing wedding photography. in the end, it's probably good for everyone. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 10:53 AM btw, Dickens' major beef with the U.S. was that it didn't recognize international copyright when he was working. U.S. publishers ripped him off -- the best-selling author of the day. They would just get a copy of his official UK editions (as they came out, once a month or every couple weeks), and would print their own versions. For the longest time, Dickens couldn't make any money off the U.S. market, which was bigger than his UK market. It got worse than that -- there were unauthorized plays based on his novels. And they'd be putting them out before the novels were finished (again, his novels usually came out in installments, a few chapters at a time). That was in London itself. Now, Dickens was plenty rich. But it was not cool that he was getting ripped off. Sindel 08-23-2011, 10:53 AM And Idunno why you take issue with referring to a global community of folks using a set of technologies to swap data files as an "institution". Why wouldn't it be one? I guess I may have used the wrong word. What I meant is, piracy is an umbrella term for a number of activities, not an actual being (whether physical or ideological or what not). For instance, the SS is an institution with the sole purpose of causing pain (yes, it was probably in their mission statement). Piracy is not an institution with a purpose. In the aggregate (i.e., not individual sense), it's sort of like a catastrophe. You don't call nature unethical for hurting those reinsurance companies. You just expect the companies to adapt. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 10:53 AM Yes this is a semantic argument. And no, it is because stealing implies that you're depriving the company (or person or whatever) of property it currently possesses. Yes, I think it does matter. Your analogies are different. On both cases, you are being unethical toward other students by getting an unfair advantage. Doesn't the label possess them by virtue of contract with the musician? Doesn't the studio possess it by virtue that it created the movie? Aren't you being unethical towards the musicians who get paid according to sales? Aren't you being unethical towards movie writers and or actors who also may be paid according to revenue? Jasper07734 08-23-2011, 10:54 AM I want my... I want my MP3s (music for nothing, flicks for free) :lol: Sindel 08-23-2011, 10:55 AM Doesn't the label possess them by virtue of contract with the musician? Doesn't the studio possess it by virtue that it created the movie? Yes, and you are not depriving them of it. Aren't you being unethical towards the musicians who get paid according to sales? Aren't you being unethical towards movie writers and or actors who also may be paid according to revenue? Again, I'm not talking about it being ethical, just about it not being stealing. But I'll bite. How are you being unethical? Are you depriving them of pay they currently possess? NotUrAvgXBar 08-23-2011, 11:02 AM Does anyone here believe that borrowing a DVD is okay but that downloading a DVD from the internet is wrong? remilard 08-23-2011, 11:02 AM As such, the actions have to be evaluated at the individual level, not the aggregate. Okay. So I think I've got it. 1. Individuals who rip off media aren't really doing any harm. 2. The collection of individuals who rip off media are doing harm to people who work in the industries that produce media. 3. The collection of individuals who rip off media are deemed to be "not an institution". 4. Therefore we must only criticize each individual act, which ain't all that bad. 5. ??? 6. I'll do what I want and torture logic to justify it. freddecker 08-23-2011, 11:04 AM And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes? Sindel 08-23-2011, 11:08 AM 1. Individuals who rip off media aren't really doing any harm. 2. The collection of individuals who rip off media are doing harm to people who work in the industries that produce media. 3. The collection of individuals who rip off media are deemed to be "not an institution". 4. Therefore we must only criticize each individual act, which ain't all that bad. 5. ??? 6. I'll do what I want and torture logic to justify it. Well, right, if you want to criticize the collection of individual acts great, go for it, but what will you accomplish? An individual person is not directly supporting it by engaging in it (unless it is in the point brought up earlier about seeding), and the collection of individuals will still be there whether or not one person does it. And as for the last point, ehh... I'm not justifying anything. I actually tend to get laughed at when I tell people I buy music on iTunes. These are simply my views on the issue, and the first paragraph is part of the reason why. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 11:11 AM Yes, and you are not depriving them of it. But you are depriving them of an income, aren't you. And therefore you are depriving the artists of revenue. Again, I'm not talking about it being ethical, just about it not being stealing. But I'll bite. How are you being unethical? Are you depriving them of pay they currently possess? I don't understand the distinction--it is precisely unethical because it is stealing. You are depriving the artists and the labels/studios of lost income because you are stealing their product. Also, what do you mean by "pay they possess"? Pseudolus 08-23-2011, 11:13 AM Piracy is not an institution with a purpose.Sure it is. It's purpose is to swap files. It's not a top-down, centrally created and managed institution, but many institutions aren't. (Read yourself some Tocqueville, for instance.) In the aggregate (i.e., not individual sense), it's sort of like a catastrophe. You don't call nature unethical for hurting those reinsurance companies. You just expect the companies to adapt. That's because nature isn't people, not because it isn't centralized. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 11:16 AM And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes? rn llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 11:18 AM Does anyone here believe that borrowing a DVD is okay but that downloading a DVD from the internet is wrong? It's interesting to note that on British copyright verbage in books, I've seen that it expressly prohibits lending, borrowing and even reselling. But in the U.S. that is covered by "fair use". (Much to the annoyance of rights holders) Here the law is in the favor of the consumer/pirate. Sindel 08-23-2011, 11:22 AM But you are depriving them of an income, aren't you. And therefore you are depriving the artists of revenue. You're depriving them of an income they could get in the future, not of an income they have right now. "Stealing" refers to the latter. And I understand that we are arguing in the case when a person pirates something they would have bought, but out of curiosity what are your thoughts on when a person pirates something that they wouldn't have otherwise bought? I don't understand the distinction--it is precisely unethical because it is stealing. It can be unethical, I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying I don't agree with calling it stealing. Rockhound 08-23-2011, 11:22 AM So the guy in the next cube was working on a great new product idea for my company. I "pirated" it, and now say it's my own. You guys all cool with that? Sindel 08-23-2011, 11:25 AM Sure it is. It's purpose is to swap files. It's not a top-down, centrally created and managed institution, but many institutions aren't. (Read yourself some Tocqueville, for instance.) Well, no, the people's purpose is to swap files. File sharing software's purpose is to swap files. Piracy is just an umbrella term that includes the actions of swapping files. Again, I've already conceded I may have picked the wrong word when I said "institution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoF_a0-7xVQ)". And yes, the nature bit might have been a poor example in that regard. The point is companies should adapt. bloodninja 08-23-2011, 11:25 AM So the guy in the next cube was working on a great new product idea for my company. I "pirated" it, and now say it's my own. You guys all cool with that? If it's for private use and you're not making any money on it, I don't have a problem with that. Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 11:26 AM The copyright laws as currently implemented are unethical, with their practically perpetual copyright lengths, DMCA, and other crap like that. Even putting public domain works back under copyright (http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2011/06/10/137080114/the-supreme-court-to-consider-prokofiev). Keep It Real, Yo 08-23-2011, 11:26 AM Does anyone here believe that borrowing a DVD is okay but that downloading a DVD from the internet is wrong? Yes. The difference? The person who loaned you the DVD goes without it while it is in your possession. snikelfritz 08-23-2011, 11:27 AM So the guy in the next cube was working on a great new product idea for my company. I "pirated" it, and now say it's my own. You guys all cool with that? Funny usually it's the boss who pirates the idea in that circumstance... llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 11:27 AM You're depriving them of an income they could get in the future, not of an income they have right now. "Stealing" refers to the latter. Have you thought through what you're saying? That just sounds ridiculous. And I understand that we are arguing in the case when a person pirates something they would have bought, but out of curiosity what are your thoughts on when a person pirates something that they wouldn't have otherwise bought? That's one and the same situation. If I'm pirating it I don't want to pay for it. regardless of whether I would have bought it or not. It can be unethical, I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying I don't agree with calling it stealing. What do you call it when you take something that you don't otherwise have a right to take? Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 11:29 AM But you are depriving them of an income, aren't you. And therefore you are depriving the artists of revenue. But when physically stealing something, you deprive the seller of the future income from it and also the item itself. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 11:31 AM But when physically stealing something, you deprive the seller of the future income from it and also the item itself. So, going back to the TIA example, why not pirate TIA videos or Actex electronic manuals, etc? Linus 08-23-2011, 11:31 AM The amount of rationalization going on in this thread is staggering. notreallyme 08-23-2011, 11:32 AM "too lazy to do it." Though I do pay for Rhapsody Unlimited, download the music pull the DRM and listen to the Music in iTunes :shrug: NotUrAvgXBar 08-23-2011, 11:32 AM Yes. The difference? The person who loaned you the DVD goes without it while it is in your possession. Ok. By that logic, is it then unethical for him to watch it with me? I am watching it without paying for it and he is not going without it. DownInTexas 08-23-2011, 11:33 AM My pirating generally goes as follows: I have no access to it legally right now, so I pirate it until I can purchase it legally. So for a show that I want to watch on a channel I don't get, I'll download it, then purchase it as soon as it is available to do so legally. The other time is just downloading an episode to catch up with a show I missed. Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 11:34 AM So, going back to the TIA example, why not pirate TIA videos or Actex electronic manuals, etc? Physically stealing the discs with the TIA videos or Actex manuals would be much more damaging to them than making copies without depriving them of the original. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 11:36 AM Physically stealing the discs with the TIA videos or Actex manuals would be much more damaging to them than making copies without depriving them of the original. I'm not talking physically. AFAIK, there are no physical discs for TIA. Is it ok to somehow pirate TIA videos, because it's a future income thing? nonlnear 08-23-2011, 11:37 AM So, going back to the TIA example, why not pirate TIA videos or Actex electronic manuals, etc? I believe that their IP rights are superior to those of Disney. They have a short usable life, and don't seek to milk a long product lifecycle far beyond the initial design of American copyright. The copyright on these products improves society. Copyright on 70 year old films does not. the BS method 08-23-2011, 11:38 AM Now, Dickens was plenty rich. But it was not cool that he was getting ripped off. who was the victim? how do you think the # of people that were able to read his books in that time period would have changed? this will henceforth be referred to as the dicken' metric Sindel 08-23-2011, 11:42 AM Have you thought through what you're saying? That just sounds ridiculous. ? That's one and the same situation. If I'm pirating it I don't want to pay for it. regardless of whether I would have bought it or not. Because only in the former situation are you actually depriving them of income. What do you call it when you take something that you don't otherwise have a right to take? See, that is getting better. I wouldn't call it stealing, but I don't think there is a word for it. Maybe disapproved appropriation? BG5150 08-23-2011, 11:43 AM Neither of your analogies are valid. If you participate in or support the things you mentioned, that is unethical, because you are supporting and improving unethical institutions. If you pirate something, you are not "supporting piracy". Piracy isn't even an institution to be "supported". Yes it is. A physical institution with a headquarters and staff? No. But an institution nonetheless. When you are downloading a file, you are almost always uploading some of the pieces you've already received to others. Torrents are collaborative efforts. You are not downloading the file from a server, but taking pieces of the file(s) from a swarm of other people (be it 2 or 3 people or hundreds or thousands). That's what makes it so quick and easy. Therefore, you are promoting piracy in others by aiding and abetting them in their illegal download. Arthur Kade 08-23-2011, 11:48 AM Physically stealing the discs with the TIA videos or Actex manuals would be much more damaging to them than making copies without depriving them of the original. :shake: Arthur Kade 08-23-2011, 11:50 AM I am appalled at the lack of respect for IP in this thread. nonlnear 08-23-2011, 11:50 AM See, that is getting better. I wouldn't call it stealing, but I don't think there is a word for it. Maybe disapproved appropriation? Are you a fellow member of the "no red font club"? Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 11:51 AM I'm not talking physically. AFAIK, there are no physical discs for TIA. Is it ok to somehow pirate TIA videos, because it's a future income thing? It is physically stored somewhere. You know what I mean -- taking it in a way that deprives the owner of the original is worse than making an unauthorized copy of the original. Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 11:52 AM :shake: So you're saying that depriving them of the originals, thereby forcing them to rebuild them from scratch is no worse than making an unauthorized copy? daaaave 08-23-2011, 11:59 AM So you're saying that depriving them of the originals, thereby forcing them to rebuild them from scratch is no worse than making an unauthorized copy? That reminds me, I need to back up the 2012 version of my seminars to a remote location. erosewater 08-23-2011, 12:05 PM People like to say that people pirate because they want things for free. It's not free for me. I pay for Usenet access. I pay for a higher internet tier since downloads are so huge now. I pay for multiple large hard drives to store media on. I pay a higher electric bill every month to run a server 24/7 with a bunch of hard drives in it. I'm willing to spend a decent amount of money buying media to consume, but I want it to be easy and convenient. I don't want to be treated like a pirate if I'm a paying customer. None of the crap they do will ever make a dent in piracy, so they're crapping all over their actual customers with completely ineffectual anti-piracy strategies. When music could only be purchased on CDs and the RIAA were being buttholes about selling digital music, I pirated it. When they finally started selling digital music but loaded it up with DRM, sold low bitrate files in crappy formats, I continued to pirate it. When they finally came to their senses and started selling high quality files with no DRM for a reasonable price, I started buying all of my music again. Maybe someday the movie and TV industries will figure this out. NotUrAvgXBar 08-23-2011, 12:10 PM Yes it is. A physical institution with a headquarters and staff? No. But an institution nonetheless. When you are downloading a file, you are almost always uploading some of the pieces you've already received to others. Torrents are collaborative efforts. You are not downloading the file from a server, but taking pieces of the file(s) from a swarm of other people (be it 2 or 3 people or hundreds or thousands). That's what makes it so quick and easy. Therefore, you are promoting piracy in others by aiding and abetting them in their illegal download. Yup. People share with me, and I share with them. I read books from the library and trade DVDs with friends, too. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 12:11 PM It's interesting to note that on British copyright verbage in books, I've seen that it expressly prohibits lending, borrowing and even reselling. But in the U.S. that is covered by "fair use". (Much to the annoyance of rights holders) Here the law is in the favor of the consumer/pirate. the ghost of Dickens is glowering at us limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 12:12 PM That reminds me, I need to back up the 2012 version of my seminars to a remote location. heck, i produce them on a remote location that is then backed up. but i should probably put them on one of my many zip drives i've got just randomly around the house. yoyo 08-23-2011, 12:14 PM The amount of rationalization going on in this thread is staggering.+1 limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 12:20 PM who was the victim? how do you think the # of people that were able to read his books in that time period would have changed? this will henceforth be referred to as the dicken' metric Dickens had official publishers in the U.S. (or just shipped books over from the UK). But they were being undercut by those who didn't pay Dickens royalties. Hard to compete with the cut-rate version. Kind of like the guys who sell DVDs on blankets all around NYC. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 12:22 PM It is physically stored somewhere. You know what I mean -- taking it in a way that deprives the owner of the original is worse than making an unauthorized copy of the original. You know what's worse than that? Murdering us. I'm not sure why this is a relevant point to make, but it seems we've veered off into a "what's worser than worse?" list for some reason. silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:26 PM Once I started working and making a lot of money, I stopped stealing. silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:27 PM Sometimes I tape sports without the expressed written consent of the NFL. Is that stealing? BG5150 08-23-2011, 12:28 PM Yup. People share with me, and I share with them. I read books from the library and trade DVDs with friends, too. You read books from the library (which have been already paid for) and then return it. You trade DvDs (which have been paid for) with friends and they get returned. In neither case do you have usage of the media at any time you want. silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:28 PM I also stream sports at work sometimes. Without the expressed written consent of the MLB. Is that stealing? Linus 08-23-2011, 12:29 PM Sometimes I tape sports without the expressed written consent of the NFL. Is that stealing? Yes, but it'ss only pirating if you wear an eyepatch while you're doing it. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 12:29 PM That reminds me -- my local library has e-readers it loans out silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:30 PM Or if Pittsburgh is playing BG5150 08-23-2011, 12:32 PM Sometimes I tape sports without the expressed written consent of the NFL. Is that stealing? As long as you are not rebroadcasting it or retransmitting it, then, no. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 12:38 PM Just thought of something, regarding hte whole borrowing/lending dvds question--when you buy a DVD in the US, you buy the product, but also the privelege to lend it, share it, resell it, etc. BG5150 08-23-2011, 12:38 PM That reminds me -- my local library has e-readers it loans out But once you read the "book" you return the e-reader and the file that's loaded on to it. That's the same as borrowing a physical book. If you download the file to keep for yourself, then that's stealing. nonlnear 08-23-2011, 12:41 PM As long as you are not rebroadcasting it or retransmitting it, then, no.What kind of retransmission actually qualifies as retransmission? Watching it off of your TiVo over your home wireless connection? Watching it over Slingbox in a media blackout zone? These are not trivial matters, and the case law is far from settled. It's silly to pretend that there is a clear standard, especially when the studios are constantly pushing for the most restrictive regulations imaginable. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 12:42 PM What kind of retransmission actually qualifies as retransmission? Watching it off of your TiVo over your home wireless connection? Watching it over Slingbox in a media blackout zone? These are not trivial matters, and the case law is far from settled. It's silly to pretend that there is a clear standard, especially when the studios are constantly pushing for the most restrictive regulations imaginable. don't direct tv sunday ticket subscribers still get blacked out games? silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:44 PM don't direct tv sunday ticket subscribers still get blacked out games? That's with the NFL's consent. nonlnear 08-23-2011, 12:46 PM don't direct tv sunday ticket subscribers still get blacked out games? If they do the broadcaster has to deal with the licensing issues. When you bounce a broadcast to yourself you are the rebroadcaster, so the legal ramifications may be very different. ADoubleDot 08-23-2011, 12:46 PM Small musicians can put their music up for free if they wish. That's not piracy. They absolutely can not. The recordings of their songs belong to the label. And it is the label's choice of how to distribute those recordings and how much to charge. My cousin was forced to take several of his songs off facebook. (obviously a very small artisit who recorded soemthing in his garage doesn't apply) erosewater 08-23-2011, 12:52 PM They absolutely can not. The recordings of their songs belong to the label. And it is the label's choice of how to distribute those recordings and how much to charge. My cousin was forced to take several of his songs off facebook. (obviously a very small artisit who recorded soemthing in his garage doesn't apply) This. There was a fairly big band recently (Ok Go maybe?) that was creating videos and putting them on Youtube to market themselves, and the label made them stop. Of course, that's the band's fault for signing up with an RIAA label in the first place. They are completely useless these days NotUrAvgXBar 08-23-2011, 12:52 PM You read books from the library (which have been already paid for) and then return it. You trade DvDs (which have been paid for) with friends and they get returned. In neither case do you have usage of the media at any time you want. I don't download music straight out of an artist's head, it comes from someone who paid for it. What does it matter if I have usage of the media at any time I want or not? Does an artist make more money if I borrow the cd from him vs him burning me a copy? It's not unethical to listen to his cd with him, but if there's a physical distance between us it's suddently unethical that we can listen to the same music at the same time? silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:55 PM Because you might buy it llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 12:57 PM I don't download music straight out of an artist's head, it comes from someone who paid for it. What does it matter if I have usage of the media at any time I want or not? Does an artist make more money if I borrow the cd from him vs him burning me a copy? It's not unethical to listen to his cd with him, but if there's a physical distance between us it's suddently unethical that we can listen to the same music at the same time? The library has paid for the priveledge (sp?) to lend. The purchaser has purchased the priveledge to lend. remilard 08-23-2011, 12:57 PM They absolutely can not. The recordings of their songs belong to the label. And it is the label's choice of how to distribute those recordings and how much to charge. My cousin was forced to take several of his songs off facebook. (obviously a very small artisit who recorded soemthing in his garage doesn't apply) How about this. Any musician who has not entered voluntarily a contract limiting his or her ability to do so may put their music online, or on a pigeon, if they so choose. NotUrAvgXBar 08-23-2011, 12:58 PM Because you might buy it So it's unethical unless you wouldn't have bought it anyways. silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:58 PM Tangent: Do libraries pay retail or do they pay extra to be able to lend? RazorGuns 08-23-2011, 12:58 PM I get all the latest movies and regularly i have potluck viewing parties at my friends house. big screen, surround sound. Everyone loves it. People are always impressed i get movies that are sitll playing. It's that one little piece of coolness in my otherwise average life. r silverfox 08-23-2011, 12:59 PM So it's unethical unless you wouldn't have bought it anyways. Yes, but how would you prove that? Especially now that you can buy individual songs without buying the whole album. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 01:04 PM But once you read the "book" you return the e-reader and the file that's loaded on to it. That's the same as borrowing a physical book. If you download the file to keep for yourself, then that's stealing. Yes, I understand the concept. I'm just saying that even with digital media, libraries have figured out a way to make it work legitimately. Even before they had the e-readers you could check out, they had e-books you could "check out" from online. I forget the format, but the contract they had signed meant they had a certain number of copies that could be "checked out" simultaneously. I thought it a fair solution. llcooljabe 08-23-2011, 01:05 PM Of course, that's the band's fault for signing up with an RIAA label in the first place. They are completely useless these days :iatp: there are plenty of "labels" out there that will help get the word out without taking your soul. They also don't own the songs either. Big labels will soon die. limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 01:07 PM They absolutely can not. The recordings of their songs belong to the label. And it is the label's choice of how to distribute those recordings and how much to charge. My cousin was forced to take several of his songs off facebook. (obviously a very small artisit who recorded soemthing in his garage doesn't apply) What? In this day & age they've got a label? I thought we were talking about real small artists, where they're producing and promoting themselves, not the corporate-backed guys. RazorGuns 08-23-2011, 01:22 PM Funny there's an XXX expo here next month. I ask how can they afford it? No one buys porn anymore. Unless the convention is nothing but edible undies, sex machines, cute condoms, gay porn, lingerie, crap like that. r the BS method 08-23-2011, 03:37 PM Dickens had official publishers in the U.S. (or just shipped books over from the UK). But they were being undercut by those who didn't pay Dickens royalties. Hard to compete with the cut-rate version. Kind of like the guys who sell DVDs on blankets all around NYC. You wont be happy until the Dicken metric is at least a 9 will you? limabeanactuary 08-23-2011, 03:43 PM You wont be happy until the Dicken metric is at least a 9 will you? 11. Incredible Hulctuary 08-23-2011, 07:56 PM Funny there's an XXX expo here next month. I ask how can they afford it? No one buys porn anymore. Unless the convention is nothing but edible undies, sex machines, cute condoms, gay porn, lingerie, crap like that. r Internet pr0n is a multi-billion dollar industry. Just because you and I won't pay for it doesn't mean other people aren't willing to pay. Durai 08-23-2011, 08:21 PM I think of pirating as a petty crime or a small wrong. It's like going to a burger joint and taking a fistful of napkins even though you know you only need one or two. Or jaywalking. Still, you can't actually argue that no harm is done when you pirate. Yes, but how would you prove that? Especially now that you can buy individual songs without buying the whole album. Even if one could mysteriously determine if they would have bought it, it really doesn't matter. The mass collective withdrawal of potential buyers (now freeloaders) from the market distorts the demand curve for pirated stuff, particularly demand at lower prices. Perhaps without pirating, it could be profitable to sell it at a much lower price that more people are willing to pay. It also creates a disincentive to work. Bill Gates or ShebePoe probably don't care if DVDs cost$50 or $1000 each. But for most people it would matter. So saying I would not have bought that album for$12 anyway is meaningless. I bet people would think differently about it if they made millions a year.

Durai
08-23-2011, 08:26 PM
People strangely believe that just because the current price of goods are above their willingness to pay that they're somehow no longer market participants. More specifically, they're participants that still influence the future pricing and production of goods.

Sparktz
08-23-2011, 08:30 PM
Would you tell your mother that you pirate media? What about your boss? Would you do it if you couldn't do it semi-anonymously (i.e. the owner of the material could easily find out that you did it)?

If you would answer no to any of these questions, but then still rationalize that it is okay to do it, then I am confused.

Durai
08-23-2011, 08:32 PM
Would you tell your mother that you pirate media? What about your boss? Would you do it if you couldn't do it semi-anonymously (i.e. the owner of the material could easily find out that you did it)?

If you would answer no to any of these questions, but then still rationalize that it is okay to do it, then I am confused.

I think I've told both. "Ayyy, everybody does it :shrug:!"

Would I still do it if I have to pay crazy ass fines? No. Currently, it's very possible to pirate most things safely.

Whiskey
08-23-2011, 08:32 PM
don't direct tv sunday ticket subscribers still get blacked out games?

Not if it is a home game in your local market. If it is in another market, then directv will have the game. But so will the FOX/CBS affiliate in the away teams market (only home team fans ate blacked out).

nonlnear
08-23-2011, 08:40 PM
Would you tell your mother that you pirate media? What about your boss? Would you do it if you couldn't do it semi-anonymously (i.e. the owner of the material could easily find out that you did it)?

If you would answer no to any of these questions, but then still rationalize that it is okay to do it, then I am confused.
I don't pirate, but if I did I would happily tell my mother. My boss is a different story because there are policies in place to discriminate against certain views on the matter. There is no shame involved in that calculation. It's strictly mercenary, so I don't see why you think it's relevant.

If I smoked pot I wouldn't tell my boss unless we were sharing a bowl. Would it mean I had some cognitive dissonance on the matter just because I wanted to protect my job?

When you talk about the scenario of no anonymity do you mean just that everybody knows, or are you talking about the full implication of enforcement? If it's the latter, then I don't see what your point is. Some people choose to avoid negative consequences, therefore they must have inconsistent values. These are the thought processes that occupy the mind of a compliant slave. Now if you meant only that the owners knew but enforcement wasn't brought to bear, that's an interesting proposition. A real test for shame. However even on this score I think the concept of shame is disappearing from the youth fairly quickly. It may already have disappeared completely.

Heaven's Thunder Hammer
08-24-2011, 03:56 AM
I download TV Shows that I could have watched on my TV. Not that I even have a cable bill anymore, but that's besides the point. I generally avoid downloading large back seasons of other TV shows that are widely available on DVD.

Movies, my wife and I see lots on $2 Tuesdays in theater. We buy some DVD's of movies we really like that we downloaded on occasion. And if it's really old TV orMovies? I DL away. NotUrAvgXBar 08-24-2011, 08:45 AM People strangely believe that just because the current price of goods are above their willingness to pay that they're somehow no longer market participants. More specifically, they're participants that still influence the future pricing and production of goods. You sound like my congress. llcooljabe 08-24-2011, 08:50 AM Movies, my wife and I see lots on$2 Tuesdays in theater. We buy some DVD's of movies we really like that we downloaded on occasion.

Now that I moved south of the border, I so miss that...