UK views towards Piracy

[RussSchultz]

does MPAA or RIAA make music?... no
do they write scripts for movies?... no

what the fuck they acctually do?.... spend countless millions of dollars lobbying that piracy is some sort of doomsday for economy.....

Uhhh, to be sure, they're advocating for their association members. You know, the people who make the content that you like to steal?

All you people who say "sharing makes people buy more" should look at China and see exactly what a free for all does to the intellectual property market.

 

[silence]

Uhhh, to be sure, they're advocating for their association members. You know, the people who make the content that you like to steal?

All you people who say "sharing makes people buy more" should look at China and see exactly what a free for all does to the intellectual property market.

offcourse, chinese have same salaries as americans and can afford overpriced CD/games......
why dont you work for chinese salary for a year and lets see how will you look at this issue?.... no?
its so easy to ride your high horse with your pockets full....


BTW :: as far as i know their members are....*GRASP*....publishers not artists.... another dinosaurs that dont want to see digital distribution of content they DONT make

 

[RussSchultz]

"I'm poor, I have the right to steal"

Great moral argument you have there.

BTW :: as far as i know their members are....*GRASP*....publishers not artists.... another dinosaurs that dont want to see digital distribution of content they DONT make

There is economic risk in publishing. These members put up the capital to create the movies you like to steal. They don't simply siphon money off an industry that would have been created without them.

 

[Crisidelm]

...
What happened is that sharing due to technology has become very inexpensive, it still costs (bandwidth, time to find what you need, etc) but the cost to "make an exact replica" of the digital good is now very small, actually negligible, but it is still there. So what is being shared is not "stolen" - ie taken away from somebody so he cannot have something he owned, it is being - replicated for use of both the owner and the one who got the exact replica. If the one getting the replica is happy so be it.
...

And BTW, the media to make the "exact replica", in Italy and other European countries, are overtaxed to cover "possible" copyright abuses, that is, a percentage of the cost of each "blank" CD, DVD, even HDs, goes to, guess who, the RIAA or MPAA alikes (in Italy it's something called SIAE). So in the end, they get their money all the same (even if you are NOT going to use the blank media to make exact replica of copyrighted stuff!).

 

[digitalwanderer]

"I'm poor, I have the right to steal"

Great moral argument you have there.

Actually it's a lot better than my, "I do it because it's so damned easy and fun!"....I don't really have the poor excuse as much.

 

[silence]

"I'm poor, I have the right to steal"

Great moral argument you have there.

and whats your moral argument?
"i am rich, i can buy it, so fuck those that cant"? you are really nice person....

truth is, and most of those about who you whine here know it, that software prices are adjusted to US/EU living standrads, not the worlds....
best example is big bad M$ that made special deals with many poor countries to drop prices on winXP so they wont go Linux way....

i really dont see how you can expect anyone that makes like 50$ a month to buy legit copy of Photoshop or 3DMax.....
but that wont stop american companies to employ people that learned their skills using such software, would it?..... how many people in India or China can acctually pay the price tag that is adjusted to western salaries?
does that stop SAME companies from hiring people that used unlicenced copies of their own software cause they are cheap labor?

NO, it doesnt....

so please, stop riding your high horse and get down to earth.... i asked you a question, would _YOU_ like to live on chinese salary and what would you tell your kids when they needed Photoshop or some other software to build their skills and become programers?
"sorry kids, but giving you education would be wrong"?

stop the preaching. its boring.

 

[Blazkowicz]

And BTW, the media to make the "exact replica", in Italy and other European countries, are overtaxed to cover "possible" copyright abuses, that is, a percentage of the cost of each "blank" CD, DVD, even HDs, goes to, guess who, the RIAA or MPAA alikes (in Italy it's something called SIAE). So in the end, they get their money all the same (even if you are NOT going to use the blank media to make exact replica of copyrighted stuff!).

and if you don't pay the CD-R tax (by ordering them abroad for instance) , it's kind of considered by the law like you bought smuggled cigarettes (which I rarely do. People don't care when buying smuggled cigarettes, and it's far worse than to dl stuff on P2P, as it supports organized crime.)

this tax kind of legitimates piracy. Officially it's a compensation for fair use, but paying a tax to private corporations for exercising your rights given by law is wrong. A bit mafia-like.

 

[RussSchultz]

and whats your moral argument?
"i am rich, i can buy it, so fuck those that cant"? you are really nice person....

My means has nothing to do with whether or not taking it without permission is theft.

truth is, and most of those about who you whine here know it, that software prices are adjusted to US/EU living standrads, not the worlds....

Wow. ONly you people know this?! Holy shit, how did I not know this?

best example is big bad M$ that made special deals with many poor countries to drop prices on winXP so they wont go Linux way....

And that is the copyright holder's perogative.

i really dont see how you can expect anyone that makes like 50$ a month to buy legit copy of Photoshop or 3DMax.....

I agree. I also don't think that they _need_ it. Regardless, it doesn't justify theft of it.

but that wont stop american companies to employ people that learned their skills using such software, would it?..... how many people in India or China can acctually pay the price tag that is adjusted to western salaries?
does that stop SAME companies from hiring people that used unlicenced copies of their own software cause they are cheap labor?

NO, it doesnt....

Whaaa? Labor in China and India is cheap because they buy unlicensed software? Therefor its good so STFU? Whaaaa?

so please, stop riding your high horse and get down to earth.... i asked you a question, would _YOU_ like to live on chinese salary and what would you tell your kids when they needed Photoshop or some other software to build their skills and become programers?
"sorry kids, but giving you education would be wrong"?

I had no idea pirating the latest movie was a _need_ that ended up educating and building skills as programmers.

Your strawmen are pretty laughable.

stop the preaching. its boring.

Well, if you'd simply stop trying to justify your theft...

 

[silence]

Well, if you'd simply stop trying to justify your theft...

yarrrr...... lets sail seven BT sites...... 8)


speaking to you is pointless, you obviously have no idea how bad some people live and how hard is to get some things you have.... calling them all thieves, just cause they want part of what you have (mainly due to their cheap labor, but thats for other discussion) is just disgusting.

it seems that we have two knights in shiny armor defending same useless crap.... oh well.... have fun....

BTW :: theft? of what?

 

[_xxx_]

Lets have a good example....Doom 3 was on BT just hours after being released in US and europeans simply swarmed all P2P networks to get their hands of most expected game of the year... how did ID react?
cool, cause in the end.... all those pirating didnt hurt sales at all.....
how many people bought the game after DLing it and finishing it?

Me! I preordered it, but the DL was there before my copy arrived...

 

[Crisidelm]

And BTW, the media to make the "exact replica", in Italy and other European countries, are overtaxed to cover "possible" copyright abuses, that is, a percentage of the cost of each "blank" CD, DVD, even HDs, goes to, guess who, the RIAA or MPAA alikes (in Italy it's something called SIAE). So in the end, they get their money all the same (even if you are NOT going to use the blank media to make exact replica of copyrighted stuff!).

and if you don't pay the CD-R tax (by ordering them abroad for instance) , it's kind of considered by the law like you bought smuggled cigarettes (which I rarely do. People don't care when buying smuggled cigarettes, and it's far worse than to dl stuff on P2P, as it supports organized crime.)

this tax kind of legitimates piracy. Officially it's a compensation for fair use, but paying a tax to private corporations for exercising your rights given by law is wrong. A bit mafia-like.

I don't smoke And I don't download much of copyrighted stuff either, most of the time I look for bootleg concerts or such, which are not for sale anywhere (one could say, the music bootlegged is copyrighted all the same, but I'd reply, I'd pay for it if it was for sale, but it isn't).

 

[Frank]

Supreme Court rules against file swapping

So, now we wait for Hollywood and Microsoft to think of a way to make it impossible to build up a P2P connection with someone outside the US?

 

[silence]

Supreme Court rules against file swapping

So, now we wait for Hollywood and Microsoft to think of a way to make it impossible to build up a P2P connection with someone outside the US?

well.... moving to Russia is always alternative.... specially since our languages are pretty similar, so i wouldnt have to worry as much as if i moved to China.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Supreme Court rules against file swapping

So, now we wait for Hollywood and Microsoft to think of a way to make it impossible to build up a P2P connection with someone outside the US?

Uhh, no. They sent the case back to the 9th Circuit Court, most likely for a jury trial. The crux of the matter is that you can't advertise your P2P service as being great for infringing copyright, which Grokster and Streamcast did by calling themselves a Napster replacement.

Otherwise, the RIAA could sue Microsoft, which provides a TCPIP stack that is used to transfer data over the internet. Lots of PCs are using Windows, and lots of traffic is generated by P2P, ergo, MS TCPIP is used to illegally distribute copywritten material.

Basically this isn't as big a deal as the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe. As with all their press releases, they are employing creative writing. At best they are trying to run Grokster and Streamcast out of money by keeping this dragging through the courts, but it isn't going to make P2P illegal or P2P companies illegal. It's just going to make companies responsible if they don't clearly state that you shouldn't use their apps for infringing copyright, which most of them already do.

It's a pretty hollow victory really, and like all those other tech related "victories" in the past, I expect the music and movie biz to embrace P2P and use it to generate even more profits for themselves before they manage to stamp it out.

 

[Druga Runda]

Supreme Court rules against file swapping

So, now we wait for Hollywood and Microsoft to think of a way to make it impossible to build up a P2P connection with someone outside the US?

Uhh, no. They sent the case back to the 9th Circuit Court, most likely for a jury trial. The crux of the matter is that you can't advertise your P2P service as being great for infringing copyright, which Grokster and Streamcast did by calling themselves a Napster replacement.

Otherwise, the RIAA could sue Microsoft, which provides a TCPIP stack that is used to transfer data over the internet. Lots of PCs are using Windows, and lots of traffic is generated by P2P, ergo, MS TCPIP is used to illegally distribute copywritten material.

Basically this isn't as big a deal as the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe. As with all their press releases, they are employing creative writing. At best they are trying to run Grokster and Streamcast out of money by keeping this dragging through the courts, but it isn't going to make P2P illegal or P2P companies illegal. It's just going to make companies responsible if they don't clearly state that you shouldn't use their apps for infringing copyright, which most of them already do.

It's a pretty hollow victory really, and like all those other tech related "victories" in the past, I expect the music and movie biz to embrace P2P and use it to generate even more profits for themselves before they manage to stamp it out.

it is good if this is it, as well outerwise the development would just move outside US you cannot outlaw progress (not yet at least )

 

[silence]

it is good if this is it, as well outerwise the development would just move outside US you cannot outlaw progress (not yet at least )

i am sure better P2P will come as result of this.... RIAA and MPAA have big problem, they are stuck in the 1950's business model and thats it. they are unable to understand what is really going on.....

my personal guess is that most P2P will eventually become digital distribution channels for those that acctually make content... so likes of RIAA and MPAA and publishers will lose their profits....

and thats all the fuss about P2P. some stone age establishments unable to comprehand development of new delivery systems and use them... so they use their cash stockpiles to force laws that anyone, with any knowladge of how things work, know it will be useless....

 

[Monty]

there is already a new legal way of downloading music of a p2p network by using Peer Impact

still in the beta stages and only legally allowed in the usa (not much use to me then) but if u sign up now u get $5 worth of downloads..WOW

 

[Blazkowicz]

I think this will put an end to paid for and spyware supported P2P (Kazaa, Imesh and the like).

These were already losing momentum in favor of free open source clients using bittorent and/or the eDonkey network.
IMHO that's a good thing.

 

[poopypoo]

All you people who say "sharing makes people buy more" should look at China and see exactly what a free for all does to the intellectual property market.

sharing doesn't make people buy more IP, but it also doesn't significantly hamper real creative growth IMO. I live in Shanghai, and the music and art scenes are quite exciting, and pleasantly free from bullshit hype (and are a pale shade of what you'll find in Beijing). You still have 99% of morons who wander around like zombies, obsessed with pop radio and movies, but for the 1% of kids interested in giving back they have their outlets, and it is good. This is the benefit I perceive from elimination of Intellectual Property. The sad thing is that Shanghai is very capitalist, and advertising dominates the rest of the scene, much as it does in America. Mostly, it is American infomercial compainies advertising the same bullshit they do on infomercials in the US, only, sadly, without even a hint of a BBB to keep things clean. I have little sympathy for salesmen of all types, unless I ask for them.

My means has nothing to do with whether or not taking it without permission is theft.

This argument will never hold water with me. Your means will always have everything to do with property rights, because it is almost always the rish who want more of them, and the poor who think their lives are hard enough already. You may feel empowered by God or yourself or whatever you worship to hold your belongings forever, but I assure you that we are all permitted (as in given that right by our neighbors and their neighbors) to exist as we do on this Earth. Never forget that.

That said, the arguments presented here for piracy of software not being theft, in particular, are dim. A friend of mine put it in great perspective awhile back. Especially with regards to Photoshop, 3DSMax, and Macromedia, what vehement pirates forget is that they are destroying legitimate competition. It's true that I wouldn't buy 3DSMax, but what about a donation to gmax? It's true that you wouldn't buy Photoshop, but what about Paint Shop Pro? what about a donation to the gimp? Macromedia, well... I can't say there are alternatives to that. they were even more proprietary than Adobe. ^^;

I have pirated things before, but, I have made a habit (no it was not easy and I think if I hadn't FORCED myself I would have just stolen everything) of paying for anything I use. I've even registered my WinRAR. XD And even though it is quasi-legal here, I certainly haven't fooled myself into thinking it's not stealing. 9_9;

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Really, what is the difference in downloading content and selling warez? The concept is the same, the only difference is the identity of the players involved.

You pay for an internet connection and DL a movie... or you pay for an illegal copy of that movie because you don't have an internet connection. What's the difference? None.

You sell illegal copies of movies to make money... you profit from a file sharing network designed to allow illegal downloading. What's the difference? Here it gets more complex because there are other legitimate uses for the file sharing network, whereas there are none for the sale of illegal copies. Tougher for the courts to decide, tougher to prosecute, but the concept is the same in both cases. Even worse is that a downloader can become a server for someone else to download from. Now not only are you guilty of downloading illegal copies (theft, piracy, or whatever semantics you want to apply), but you are also guilty of distributing, just as someone selling warez does (whether you profit or not from distributing is another argument).

There is a distributor and a user in both cases. The only thing that makes selling warez "worse" than downloading from the internet is the distinction between distributor and user. This is the same as is the case for drugs. Both illegal, just different sides of the transaction.

Obviously dig feels more comfortable as a user than as a distributor. Thank goodness for that.



As for the semantic difference between piracy and theft, I obviousy believe they are much, much more similar than different. The underlying concept is identical, and since I've covered my views on that in great detail in older threads, I don't think I'll start that discussion again here.