Pirating

[Punks]

Downloading Piraing Stuff rocks. Stuff that was jnot mine, would not of paid for it, and it is now mine? Hell yeah. LOLOLOLO


If anything, I have bought more stuff BECAUSE of pirating that I would never of bought before, because 1. it was a awesome game, or 2. I wanted the features that came with it.

Can't steal want you do not have.

[Deleted]

No, they don't. It's like taking a pain killer for pain without actually addressing what's causing the pain. You don't feel it anymore, but it's still there. You're saying that STEALING someone else's products is the best way of solving the problem. ... What? How is being a thief solving any problems other than "damn I don't like all these ads"?



Because then they aren't making money off of their product? I know it's hard to feel sympathy when the artist raking in millions of dollars a year doesn't his or her chunk of that lost sale, but it's the principle that you are stealing someone else's product and acting like you're somehow doing it for the greater good.

If you pirate, you are a thief. Period. It's one thing to just not give a shit, but to say you are solving the problem by stealing? That makes no sense and is dishonest as hell.

Again, if you disagree with their service methods, boycott their products. Write them telling them you are not happy with their services and will not be buying their products until they improve their services. By stealing their products, you are allowing them to write off your position as being illegitimate (why should I listen to those thieves!?) and also allowing them to loudly insist that people are pirating because they're selfish assholes, not because their services suck.



Actually pretty much everyone loses when you steal. The original content creator doesn't get their money (maybe it doesn't matter if you're a millionaire but what if you're an up-and-coming artist whose livelihood depends on that first album selling as many copies as it can?), you're perpetuating the stereotype that pirates are selfish assholes, and you're more or less directly encouraging content owners to put these moronic DRM methods on the shit you want because they think it's actually going to help them stop people from stealing it.

Downloading a song, a movie or a book is not stealing. There's no economical profit (unless you exploit it economically and that's a crime) and no material loss for the author (he can still sell his own copies).
Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. A huge % of downloads are not an equivalent of a lost sale. If suddenly we could not download anything anymore or even watch from youtube, do you think that we'd start spending a huge amount of money in entertainment? No way.

The other day I downloaded Rob Roy, Capitán Alatriste and The Man in the Iron Mask. Did I steal? Nope, the authors can keep exploiting those movies. Did I cause any economical harm? Zero. I wouldn't have bought them if I had to in order to watch them. Did they get free advertising? Yes. I had watched two of three already, but I liked them even more now, so I'm more inclined to buy another Arturo Perez Reverte book (Author of Capitán Alatriste books) or watch movies from the same writer, director, actors, etc.

I saw that American Pie 4 (Reunion) is being released on the cinemas soon. I was like "bleh, too old for this kind of humour". I decided to download the original trilogy and watched it back to back. I loved them! I think I enjoyed them more than when I was on my 20s. What's the result for this? I'll go to the Premiere of American Pie 4.

See how it works?

A music band gets 3-9% of each CD sold. That's like...nothing. However they get around 50% from each concert ticket sold. Many small bands are putting all their music on youtube, then also on itunes and could not care less about CD downloads because they will fill concert halls.


I saw a statistic the other day that people who download stuff spend more on entertainment than people who don't download stuff. Care to explain?

[PizzaSHARK]

With RIAA it has been their failure to distribute content in a timely fashion. They wanted to protect the CD industry. Problem is technology doesn't wait on the status quo. People were/are downloading the music left and right because paying $15+ a CD for one song they do like is consumer BAD relations. Then they pulled a SoE, and started to actually fight the end-user. That is a PR nightmare of nightmares.

Now that folks can download music from online and at a nominal fee, most of the pirating has ceased for those who refused to pay for a CD for one song -- or had to pay crazy shipping as locally they couldn't get the music. $1 for a song is at a price point even kids can afford, so there's not much argument that the cost is too much (a major factor with CDs if you just want one song). That's money the music industry lost just on the lack of access of what the customer wanted, has finally been addressed.

MPAA is facing the same problem of cost and access.

There will always be pirates even if the industries bend over for their customers, but if the companies are good with their customers to deliver their products as technology evolves, there's less pressure to pirate. It comes down to money on the customer's side, too. Someway both sides need to meet halfway, or piracy will be the check in the system.

Correct on all points. Piracy will never go away - as mentioned, there ARE some people who pirate just because they're little cocknuggets - but if services were fixed so that the people pirating to avoid moronic DRM systems stopped pirating, pretty much everyone would agree that pirates are shitbags.

Instead, you've got a lot of people who pirate shit and think they're the internet's version of Robin Hood or something.

Why? It is your morals and principles you're talking about here. I don't share them. I'm not into self flagellation when it comes to protests and I'm voting with my wallet just the same. If I don't buy it, whether I actually get the product or not doesn't make any difference to anyone except me. And again, if you download, you're not a thief, you're accepting stolen goods from the actual thief. There's a huge difference. If I went to the companies site and used hacks to get the stuff, then I would be a thief.. sort of.

If you buy stolen goods from a fence, at the very least, you will be made to return those goods to their rightful owners (or to the police, who will presumably try to make sure the rightful owner gets them back.) At worst, you'll be charged with a crime simply through association with the original thieves and fence.

Knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime. It's really not much different from actually stealing the goods, though presumably buying the stolen merchandise from a fence wouldn't come with assault or B&E charges.

There's no direct comparison available because things aren't quite the same on the internet, but it's very close. If you don't want to consider piracy as being a direct thief, you're certainly being an indirect thief - that is, instead of stealing the merchandise yourself, you're just getting it from someone else.

You're still knowingly acquiring stolen goods. That's illegal pretty much everywhere.

Downloading a pirated copy has absolutely no impact here and doesn't make a difference to anyone but me.

Wrong. Downloading a pirated copy allows the content producers and providers to point at you and say "hey, he's the problem, not me! I'm just an honest store owner, that dude's a fucking thief!" Supporting sites like The Pirate Bay and many others (such as MegaUpload, which finally got shut down) is the same thing.

I don't get it. You seem to feel as though you're entitled to get these products for free. Why?

[Xarkan]

And again, if you download, you're not a thief, you're accepting stolen goods from the actual thief.

Theres a saying in my neck of the woods.. 'hæleren er ligeså go som stjæleren' ~the fence* is as good as the thief, it is equivalent, neither exist without the other, the fence enables the thief even so the fence is worse than the thief in a way

You cannot absolve yourself of misdeeds by saying 'he dunnit' if you gave him cause to do it :P

Which is as far as stealing applies, which is debateable since there is no loss of a physical object.

*) fence.. that is the term? hard to say, buyer of stolen goods but is fence applicable if the buyer is not a distributer? i never walked down the dark alleys of crime far enough to even bother to know.. nor would i have to to buy copied software

[Deleted]

Theres a saying in my neck of the woods.. 'hæleren er ligeså go som stjæleren' ~the fence* is as good as the thief, it is equivalent, neither exist without the other, the fence enables the thief even so the fence is worse than the thief in a way

You cannot absolve yourself of misdeeds by saying 'he dunnit' if you gave him cause to do it :P

Which is as far as stealing applies, which is debateable since there is no loss of a physical object.

*) fence.. that is the term? hard to say, buyer of stolen goods but is fence applicable if the buyer is not a distributer? i never walked down the dark alleys of crime far enough to even bother to know.. nor would i have to to buy copied software

But you're not the fence in this case, you're the end user, the one who is accepting the stuff not turning the shady goods into cash. A fence helps the thief get rid of stolen goods and pays them for it, then turns it around for profit. As a downloader, you're not helping the thief, in fact you're actually hurting him because if he gets caught he will be punished according to the number of copies he uploaded.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Downloading a song, a movie or a book is not stealing. There's no economical profit (unless you exploit it economically and that's a crime) and no material loss for the author (he can still sell his own copies).

Actually, not. Any lost sale is profit lost.

Piracy is a consumer warning and check of price controls and access. Higher the piracy = people want the item but it's too cost prohibitive or they can't get it easily.

[PizzaSHARK]

Downloading a song, a movie or a book is not stealing. There's no economical profit (unless you exploit it economically and that's a crime) and no material loss for the author (he can still sell his own copies).

How is it not stealing? You aren't stealing the original, but you're still stealing a copy of it. It stands to reason that you wouldn't be stealing shit if you weren't interested in it, so that's a lost sale right there. If you wanted to "try before you buy," there are a LOT of legitimate ways of doing that.

There's no justification for piracy.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. A huge % of downloads are not an equivalent of a lost sale. If suddenly we could not download anything anymore or even watch from youtube, do you think that we'd start spending a huge amount of money in entertainment? No way.

Where else would the money go? If you have money you want to spend on entertainment, you will spend it on entertainment. If you wouldn't have spent it on entertainment but instead steal shit to get your entertainment fix, you are a douchebag.

The other day I downloaded Rob Roy, Capitán Alatriste and The Man in the Iron Mask. Did I steal? Nope, the authors can keep exploiting those movies. Did I cause any economical harm? Zero. I wouldn't have bought them if I had to in order to watch them. Did they get free advertising? Yes. I had watched two of three already, but I liked them even more now, so I'm more inclined to buy another Arturo Perez Reverte book (Author of Capitán Alatriste books) or watch movies from the same writer, director, actors, etc.

And there are legitimate sources for all of this. Some are free, some are merely cheap. The best solution is to share free content through sites like Youtube as a means of free publicity. The smart businesspeople are already doing this because it's the way of the future.

It doesn't somehow mean that stealing shit is correct, though.

A music band gets 3-9% of each CD sold. That's like...nothing. However they get around 50% from each concert ticket sold. Many small bands are putting all their music on youtube, then also on itunes and could not care less about CD downloads because they will fill concert halls.

Correct. The music issue has largely been solved through services like iTunes and Pandora Radio. I use it as an example because anyone that's been alive for the past 15 years probably got to enjoy the wars between the RIAA and services like Kazaa and Napster.

I saw a statistic the other day that people who download stuff spend more on entertainment than people who don't download stuff. Care to explain?

Link.

---------- Post added 2012-02-29 at 03:05 AM ----------

But you're not the fence in this case, you're the end user, the one who is accepting the stuff not turning the shady goods into cash. A fence helps the thief get rid of stolen goods and pays them for it, then turns it around for profit. As a downloader, you're not helping the thief, in fact you're actually hurting him because if he gets caught he will be punished according to the number of copies he uploaded.

A fence in this case is someone who sells stolen goods. One shitbag steals the goods, sells them to the fence, and then the fence sells them to people who may or may not be aware that they're buying stolen goods. If they're not aware that the merchandise is stolen ("hot"), it'll usually be sold as being in "used" condition.

You're correct that this situation doesn't have a direct comparison to filesharing, but that's because the internet is somewhat new in regards to the interaction between producer and consumer. You're still supporting piracy (both the individual pirate and piracy as a whole) by downloading their shit. If there were no demand for it, there wouldn't be much reason to share it in the first place.

[Snes]

I watch old cartoons on youtube, dunno if that counts. But then again, I bought Ducktales DVDs after watching the series on youtube :P

[Deleted]

fence in this case is someone who sells stolen goods. One shitbag steals the goods, sells them to the fence, and then the fence sells them to people who may or may not be aware that they're buying stolen goods. If they're not aware that the merchandise is stolen ("hot"), it'll usually be sold as being in "used" condition.

You're correct that this situation doesn't have a direct comparison to filesharing, but that's because the internet is somewhat new in regards to the interaction between producer and consumer. You're still supporting piracy (both the individual pirate and piracy as a whole) by downloading their shit. If there were no demand for it, there wouldn't be much reason to share it in the first place.

Well, it's just me but I think they'd do it anyway. It's more like a professional pride for them. There is always competition which group can remove the protection and put it up for downloading the fastest. They take great pride in it, like "day one crack" etc. but don't earn any profit so downloaders don't really bring them any riches.

[Deleted]

Disagreeing with consumers- oh I'm sorry; "pirates".I suppose you're not up for a Part Two. Goes into a little more depth than the first, but if you'd rather not bother, then this might do.

Just gonna quote this so people read it.
People are just derping and throwing personal insults in this thread now <_<

[Deleted]

90% of the ppl that said no are lying or not aware that they did it.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Just gonna quote this so people read it.
People are just derping and throwing personal insults in this thread now <_<

Sum of it.

Consumers WILL buy the products if the roadblocks are removed to get it at an affordable and easier way.

Why I've always advocated about access. Be it in games and more. Put a roadblock in, if folks don't find another way around it, they will find other means to do so...or to refuse buying the product all together (or worse a whole company's products).

[Ogretron]

I watch old cartoons on youtube, dunno if that counts. But then again, I bought Ducktales DVDs after watching the series on youtube :P

It is the exact same thing, unless you're watching it from a user authorized to show them, but some people on this thread refuse to look at it that way. They don't want to admit the things they use are actually bad and they want to blame others for doing the exact same thing, just in a different way.

The arguments here against piracy are some of the most humerus things I've read in a long time. Especially those who think downloading and stealing are the same crime.

[Xarkan]

But you're not the fence in this case, you're the end user, the one who is accepting the stuff not turning the shady goods into cash. A fence helps the thief get rid of stolen goods and pays them for it, then turns it around for profit. As a downloader, you're not helping the thief, in fact you're actually hurting him because if he gets caught he will be punished according to the number of copies he uploaded.

Read the comment i made on fence. The saying would bunch you with the fence-like distributor for having bought the stolen goods. Its a nuance.

Well it would not ofcourse since as i also said stealing implies the loss of property, copying software does not cause the loss of the original, this is not star trek or some other hollywood show. My moral issue here is more with the sense of entitlement to own entertainment, that people fail to admit to themselves that they are wrong. They can keep doing it, i cant see it being fairly punishable (or if it was to be lets punish people spitting on eachother first, worse crime there) .. it is just morally wrong.

Consumers WILL buy the products if the roadblocks are removed to get it at an affordable and easier way..

Proof? Because people download beerware with the beerware advert removed just because.. People download shareware with a lifetime 5$ cost with the protection disabled just because

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I watch old cartoons on youtube, dunno if that counts. But then again, I bought Ducktales DVDs after watching the series on youtube :P

Yep.

YouTube is soooo good in also finding music. If it wasn't for it, I wouldn't have known about many artists, and that's a lot of loss of profit.

Now I zip to Amazon, get my music in seconds. Done.

If only the companies would catch on (like releasing game music in multiple outlets, not just iTunes. I h-a-t-e Apple). -_-

[Deleted]

It's surprising that so many people consider it a moral grey area. It's clearly morally wrong. Someone puts money and effort into creating something with the sole intention of making money from it. If you utilise that service without providing adequate financial compensation for those who created it, then you are unequivocally and unarguably stealing. That being said, as with any moral decision, if you can accept that what you're doing is wrong and feel alright about doing it, then go ahead.

Personally I quite often stream American tv shows before they're released in the UK. I know that I shouldn't, but I don't want to wait and then plan my life around watching something three months later at a specific time not convenient for me.

[crica]

pfft - i dont charge everyone that benefits from what i do at work a dollar, nor would everyone who benefits from what i do at work give me a dollar if i tried to charge them a dollar for it

i am not going to give an already rich entertainer my dollars - if my buddies on the internet do and choose to share it with me after, fine

if not, i will live without that rich entertainers entertainment

[Kasierith]

It is the exact same thing, unless you're watching it from a user authorized to show them, but some people on this thread refuse to look at it that way. They don't want to admit the things they use are actually bad and they want to blame others for doing the exact same thing, just in a different way.

The arguments here against piracy are some of the most humerus things I've read in a long time. Especially those who think downloading and stealing are the same crime.

Well.. the issue with youtube is in very grey area (nothing definitive has been put out about it legally, and no one is going to take on Google unless the case is solid as a rock). You can make the argument that when you watch something on youtube, you are not personally taking possession of the copyrighted material. Because you do not personally have it, there is 0 liability for the viewer. When something is put on youtube, the owner of the material can technically force youtube to remove the video for copyright reasons, so there is a legal assumption that if something is on youtube it is there with the owners consent.

[Kesolovac]

Well, I live in a country where average paycheck is 300 euros. Can you imagine buying a DVD for 50 euros? Of course no! People here pirate, and they do it a lot, but more out of necessity than anything else.

[Amerrack]

One can make all the excuses they want. If you pirate a product, that wasn't given away by the person(s) who owns the IP, you stole it. And are therefor a thief. It's pretty simple. You can "rationalize" all you want.