4 ms·

Sharing, not stealing. It must be comfortable to judge people from comfort of a couch in 1st world country, right? What about point in constitution of many cou

by funkyy 10y ago

Sharing, not stealing. It must be comfortable to judge people from comfort of a couch in 1st world country, right? What about point in constitution of many countries about free access to culture? Music stars make most of their money out of concerts anyways, and selling music is actual way to make money by huge labels. But you surely knew that only 10% of each CD goes to actual performers. And tbf - the only reason I am using torrents here in Europe is because there is no alternative. Netflix is 1/4th of what it is in US, there is no other services that would have huge library of movies and despite looking many times torrents are still the only option for someone who likes to see huge catalog of movies on demand.

hueving 10y ago
A constitution cannot grant you rights over things in another country. I am granted freedom of speech in the US but that doesn't permit me to paint crude depictions of 'the prophet' Muhammad in the UAE.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Interesting example, some would argue that you aren't free to paint depictions of Muhammad in the US either.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    Could you elaborate? What law does that violate?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      You will be at higher risk from fanatics, Not the law.
- funkyy 10y ago
  Yeah, you need to obey your jurisdiction. I am not in US and my home country guarantees free access to culture. Thats enough for me to actually be OK with torrents. Dont get me wrong, I pay for premium DI.fm when needed and go to cinemas, but the problem here is lack of resources that paid options provide you. I am forced to either not watch it/listen to it, or to use torrents. As simple as that. And because of constitution - if there is no alternative to torrent, I feel it is OK to use it.
provoc 10y ago
It's theft of service, so it is stealing. And uploading many small pieces of files with up to millions of anonymous entities rather stretches the usual connotations of the word "sharing". Regarding constitutional directives, it's unreasonable to think that "free access to culture" is supposed to imply "steal movies, music and software via the internet". The idea that musicians make most of their money from gigging is still no excuse to steal their music. That they are getting a minor cut from each sale surely makes this behaviour worse. And as you live in Europe, there's nothing to stop you ordering CDs and DVDs from Amazon, and paying for what you want to listen and watch rather than just stealing it and making excuses.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Copyright infringement, not theft, not stealing; not simply sharing either. By labelling it 'theft' you are applying a rhetorical device created explicitly to discredit the act of copyright infringement on moral grounds before even considering any of the justifications held by the infringer. This isn't a black and white scenario like stealing a car is (and even then there are nuances); the mere fact that millions of people engage in copyright infringement every day without any scruples whatsoever, is an indication that there is a disconnect between the law and reality, and between supply and demand. Your standpoint can be better presented without the weasel words; it prevents being downvoted as a troll too.
- mamadrood 10y ago
  Yup, except piracy always had a good impact on creators, sure it may hurts the big companies but it's the best way to promote non mainstream artists. If you download an album you weren't going to buy anyway it may incite you to go to a concert you wouldn't even consider before. The same thing can be applied to any pirated content. Look at Game of Thrones, it's one of the most pirated content of all time. It's also one of the most popular and lucrative, book sales have skyrocketed, there is a lot of tie-in products and even HBO subscriptions have gone up. All while, and probably because, the show is so much pirated. Sure piracy is stealing, legally, but it boosts the industry and really never hurts the creator, the only people saying that are big media companies that play victims while making bigger and bigger profits.

by funkyy 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

A constitution cannot grant you rights over things in another country. I am granted freedom of speech in the US but that doesn't permit me to paint crude depictions of 'the prophet' Muhammad in the UAE.

Chris2048 10y ago
Interesting example, some would argue that you aren't free to paint depictions of Muhammad in the US either.
- witty_username 10y ago
  Could you elaborate? What law does that violate?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    You will be at higher risk from fanatics, Not the law.
funkyy 10y ago
Yeah, you need to obey your jurisdiction. I am not in US and my home country guarantees free access to culture. Thats enough for me to actually be OK with torrents. Dont get me wrong, I pay for premium DI.fm when needed and go to cinemas, but the problem here is lack of resources that paid options provide you. I am forced to either not watch it/listen to it, or to use torrents. As simple as that. And because of constitution - if there is no alternative to torrent, I feel it is OK to use it.

provoc 10y ago

It's theft of service, so it is stealing. And uploading many small pieces of files with up to millions of anonymous entities rather stretches the usual connotations of the word "sharing". Regarding constitutional directives, it's unreasonable to think that "free access to culture" is supposed to imply "steal movies, music and software via the internet". The idea that musicians make most of their money from gigging is still no excuse to steal their music. That they are getting a minor cut from each sale surely makes this behaviour worse. And as you live in Europe, there's nothing to stop you ordering CDs and DVDs from Amazon, and paying for what you want to listen and watch rather than just stealing it and making excuses.

Freak_NL 10y ago
Copyright infringement, not theft, not stealing; not simply sharing either. By labelling it 'theft' you are applying a rhetorical device created explicitly to discredit the act of copyright infringement on moral grounds before even considering any of the justifications held by the infringer. This isn't a black and white scenario like stealing a car is (and even then there are nuances); the mere fact that millions of people engage in copyright infringement every day without any scruples whatsoever, is an indication that there is a disconnect between the law and reality, and between supply and demand. Your standpoint can be better presented without the weasel words; it prevents being downvoted as a troll too.
mamadrood 10y ago
Yup, except piracy always had a good impact on creators, sure it may hurts the big companies but it's the best way to promote non mainstream artists. If you download an album you weren't going to buy anyway it may incite you to go to a concert you wouldn't even consider before. The same thing can be applied to any pirated content. Look at Game of Thrones, it's one of the most pirated content of all time. It's also one of the most popular and lucrative, book sales have skyrocketed, there is a lot of tie-in products and even HBO subscriptions have gone up. All while, and probably because, the show is so much pirated. Sure piracy is stealing, legally, but it boosts the industry and really never hurts the creator, the only people saying that are big media companies that play victims while making bigger and bigger profits.