5 ms·

The arrested guy's spoutings are quite funny because they're exactly what the people on the receiving end of piracy tend to say: “To all the [anti-piracy group

The arrested guy's spoutings are quite funny because they're exactly what the people on the receiving end of piracy tend to say: “To all the [anti-piracy groups and authorities]: You are a lot of vile shit, destroying lives of people who are already struggling to pay their rent, their food, their bills,” he said. Right, it's only pirates who have bills to pay. The people who make content get their homes for free! “Why all this? Because they wanted to watch and because they didn’t necessarily have the capabilities to buy a DVD / BluRay or go to the theaters.” If you own a computer and an internet connection good enough to torrent blurays then you can afford a DVD and a cheap player, certainly a theatre ticket. "Didn't necessary have the capabilities" is pure rationalisation - it's a fantasy entirely divorced from reality, intended to let him tell himself that he's a good person really.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Just a thought: what if I only ever buy secondhand DVDs. I can only afford (read: justify the expense of) secondhand DVDs and CDs. The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market. Downloading pirate films is similar in that sense. Ok, the argument could be made that the secondhand market props up the primary market, but I don't buy it. I don't think people buy new DVDs with the thought of "I'll be able to sell this for $2 to the pawn shop after I've watched it" as a motivating factor. And, there is no secondhand market for digital media. Media piracy is the flea market of digital downloads. So an argument could be make that media piracy severs that sector of the market we would only buy secondhand DVDs anyway. Also 2x adult theatre tickets, AUS25 each, costs as much as my monthly Internet connection bill. I know there are a lot of Australians who would not be able to justify that expense.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  >>The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market. typically no vendor gets any profit from having the original buyer resell whatever they bought from the vendor. IP does have things specific to IP only, but the reselling part is on par with pretty much everything else out there getting bought and then sold again.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market 1) Japanese games publishers did want to prevent second hand sales, so your question isn't as bizarre to the rights holders. 2) They do see some of that money. I can afford to buy some new games, but only if I can sell my old games. I can only sell my old games if someone buys them. I agree with you, though.
M_Grey 10y ago
"The non sequiturs rationalizing piracy (most likely as a proxy for rationalizing their own) in the comments is amusing, to say the least." That's what I responded to.
jicem 10y ago
You Can have an ADSL Internet connections for the Price of one dvd or two theater ticket per month. A cheap player Will play all your downloaded content. I don't believe most of the pirates have the capabilities of watching more than one or two film per month in theater. I do believe services like netflix are a game changer. Even with the poor french catalog. Talking only about the cost issue.
Asooka 10y ago
Well nah you're entirely divorced from reality. A good enough pc for pirating runs you like 400$. A good enough uncapped internet connection is 10$/mo in many parts of Europe. Meanwhile, median monthly salary in those places is 300$/mo. Getting the latest entertainment keeps you part of the larger social circle. This in turn raises your networking opportunities and your chances of finding better, higher-paying work. Plus, talking about movies, books, games, etc. keeps them popular, making sure more people pay for them. I often hear my friends say "I'm not pirating that, that's good and I have the money, so I want to give the creators money". It's the same logic that drives street performers - you play something nice and people want to give you money for it. It's a feedback loop that's completely perfectly understood by the majority of people and the ones who don't give you money, either didn't like it, didn't have them, or are assholes. Morally, the first don't owe you money, the second need the money more than you and the third can go fuck themselves.
notJim 10y ago
> If you own a computer and an internet connection good enough to torrent blurays then you can afford a DVD and a cheap player, certainly a theatre ticket. "Didn't necessary have the capabilities" is pure rationalisation - it's a fantasy entirely divorced from reality, intended to let him tell himself that he's a good person really. Even still, it's not your God-given right to consume media. If you can't afford to watch a TV show or movie, that's unfortunate, but that's how it works.
- e12e 10y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree that there probably isn't or should be a "right to consume" (I'm less certain if that's not actually part of at least some of our laws, though). However, "Fair Use" is very much a right, as is access to "the commons". Both are rights being whittled away on the altar of Mickey Mouse's permanency and Disney's profits (Which of course is ironic, as Disney built itself up on Public Domain fairy tales, but as things are developing appears to never contribute anything back to the public domain of their own).
elif 10y ago
Their argument (rent, food, bills, etc) is parallel but also far more rational and applicable. The $16 you pay for your blue ray goes primarily to an oligarchical group of mega-corporations that use their clout to control the new media creation process as well as the marketplaces. No one in that process has struggled to pay rent since joining the club. "Starving artists" that eventually succeed do so despite this cartel, and not because they were enabled by it. Meanwhile piracy has created an ecosystem where actual "starving artists" are giving away their music for free because they know that people who enjoy it will pay for it anyway, and can meanwhile enjoy the benefits of unlimited exposure to potential new fans.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Just a thought: what if I only ever buy secondhand DVDs. I can only afford (read: justify the expense of) secondhand DVDs and CDs. The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market. Downloading pirate films is similar in that sense. Ok, the argument could be made that the secondhand market props up the primary market, but I don't buy it. I don't think people buy new DVDs with the thought of "I'll be able to sell this for $2 to the pawn shop after I've watched it" as a motivating factor. And, there is no secondhand market for digital media. Media piracy is the flea market of digital downloads. So an argument could be make that media piracy severs that sector of the market we would only buy secondhand DVDs anyway. Also 2x adult theatre tickets, AUS25 each, costs as much as my monthly Internet connection bill. I know there are a lot of Australians who would not be able to justify that expense.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
>>The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market. typically no vendor gets any profit from having the original buyer resell whatever they bought from the vendor. IP does have things specific to IP only, but the reselling part is on par with pretty much everything else out there getting bought and then sold again.
DanBC 10y ago
> The content makers / publishers / distributors never see a cent of the secondhand DVD market 1) Japanese games publishers did want to prevent second hand sales, so your question isn't as bizarre to the rights holders. 2) They do see some of that money. I can afford to buy some new games, but only if I can sell my old games. I can only sell my old games if someone buys them. I agree with you, though.

M_Grey 10y ago

"The non sequiturs rationalizing piracy (most likely as a proxy for rationalizing their own) in the comments is amusing, to say the least." That's what I responded to.

jicem 10y ago

You Can have an ADSL Internet connections for the Price of one dvd or two theater ticket per month. A cheap player Will play all your downloaded content. I don't believe most of the pirates have the capabilities of watching more than one or two film per month in theater. I do believe services like netflix are a game changer. Even with the poor french catalog. Talking only about the cost issue.

Asooka 10y ago

Well nah you're entirely divorced from reality. A good enough pc for pirating runs you like 400$. A good enough uncapped internet connection is 10$/mo in many parts of Europe. Meanwhile, median monthly salary in those places is 300$/mo. Getting the latest entertainment keeps you part of the larger social circle. This in turn raises your networking opportunities and your chances of finding better, higher-paying work. Plus, talking about movies, books, games, etc. keeps them popular, making sure more people pay for them. I often hear my friends say "I'm not pirating that, that's good and I have the money, so I want to give the creators money". It's the same logic that drives street performers - you play something nice and people want to give you money for it. It's a feedback loop that's completely perfectly understood by the majority of people and the ones who don't give you money, either didn't like it, didn't have them, or are assholes. Morally, the first don't owe you money, the second need the money more than you and the third can go fuck themselves.

notJim 10y ago

> If you own a computer and an internet connection good enough to torrent blurays then you can afford a DVD and a cheap player, certainly a theatre ticket. "Didn't necessary have the capabilities" is pure rationalisation - it's a fantasy entirely divorced from reality, intended to let him tell himself that he's a good person really. Even still, it's not your God-given right to consume media. If you can't afford to watch a TV show or movie, that's unfortunate, but that's how it works.

e12e 10y ago
I don't necessarily disagree that there probably isn't or should be a "right to consume" (I'm less certain if that's not actually part of at least some of our laws, though). However, "Fair Use" is very much a right, as is access to "the commons". Both are rights being whittled away on the altar of Mickey Mouse's permanency and Disney's profits (Which of course is ironic, as Disney built itself up on Public Domain fairy tales, but as things are developing appears to never contribute anything back to the public domain of their own).

elif 10y ago

Their argument (rent, food, bills, etc) is parallel but also far more rational and applicable. The $16 you pay for your blue ray goes primarily to an oligarchical group of mega-corporations that use their clout to control the new media creation process as well as the marketplaces. No one in that process has struggled to pay rent since joining the club. "Starving artists" that eventually succeed do so despite this cartel, and not because they were enabled by it. Meanwhile piracy has created an ecosystem where actual "starving artists" are giving away their music for free because they know that people who enjoy it will pay for it anyway, and can meanwhile enjoy the benefits of unlimited exposure to potential new fans.