6 ms·

I think we've all heard the arguments against piracy, and we've all heard the arguments for torrenting over and over. The main reason people download/torrent c

I think we've all heard the arguments against piracy, and we've all heard the arguments for torrenting over and over. The main reason people download/torrent copyrighted material is because that's the simplest way to get it, and there's literally no risk to get caught. In order to avoid downloading and torrenting, find a simpler way than downloading and torrenting, use a monthly subscription, or a mix of both. This works perfectly fine for World of Warcraft and Spotify, and they've taken people by storm. I dare say Spotify has made music torrenting unneeded and a thing of the past, because it's so great.

fnid2 16y ago
I don't think "that's the simplest way to get it" is a valid argument. The simplest way to get flowers is to pick them out of someone's flower bed, but we don't advocate that. For me, it's more philosophical. Consumers need to some self control. We are consuming everything without conscience -- because that's the easiest way. It's easy to eat fish, so the oceans are going to run out. It's easy to consume oil, so the gulf is polluted. It's easy to bit torrent content so people do. But it does cause problems. Some people don't want their content consumed in that way. To respond to some other commenters below, it doesn't matter if studies show only the middle men are hurt, middlemen are important for the distribution of content and much content wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the middlemen -- they need jobs too. As for the argument that "people pay after they download it" -- that's simply not true. I know tons of people who download thousands of movies and redistribute them on limewire and never pay for a single one. If you want to watch a movie and the only way to get it is to use netflix or blockbuster (both middle men) then go there and get it. If you can't get it there or you're too lazy to drive there or you don't subscribe to netflix, then don't watch the movie! Do something productive with your time. Control your desires to consume stuff you haven't supported.
- joshfinnie 16y ago
  I think people of our technological knowledge get sick and tired of screaming from the rooftops that we will watch streaming tv with commercials or listen to unlimited music for $10 a month and being shot down with a limit of the 5 newest episodes or limitations to spotify. Unfortunately, bit torrent is the easiest way and if I am walking to my mother's and the florist only allows five flowers and I want the whole dozen, the neighbor's flower bed is a nice option.
  - fnid2 16y ago
    If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home. Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway? Are you serious? Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy. The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both. Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this. Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead. It will just take a while longer before we get there. Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there. I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > it's more philosophical ... We are consuming everything without conscience The crucial difference is that, unlike most physical things, informational copies are an infinite resource. The only essential moral action is to share them freely. Whether that causes problems is entirely conditional on particular economic systems. It is indeed also true that supporting production is moral. But producing and sharing are not negatively dependent. If you don't do one, it doesn't do any good to then not do the other. They are mutually supportive: you should do both, and doing either you indirectly support the other.
  - fnid2 16y ago
    1) Informational copies aren't infinite, they take server space, electricity, and maintenance. 2) and more importantly, how do you overcome the hurdle that production itself requires resource consumption? Stuff at the lower level of Maslow's hierarchy: Food, Shelter? Producing quality content requires investment. How is a producer of that content to get a return on that investment if people don't pay for the product after it is produced? I agree that we should all produce and share, but not all sharers produce. Just because you have the bits on your hard drive does not mean the product those bits define are yours to share. Those bits are not simply bits, they are the definition of something that creates value. It takes risk to create the order of ones and zeros and if that risk is not rewarded, then the risk/reward ratio becomes too high and there is no incentive to take the risk to create the product. I know that many people create for the love of the game, but those creators have to make money somehow. They have to have day jobs or something that distracts them from the many hours it takes to create quality content. If they could get paid for the content after it is produced, then they could spend more time creating more quality content for us to consume. There was a quote from Ayn Rand about money where she describes money as a battery that stores labor so we can benefit from that labor over a longer time than it takes to perform the labor. Well, those bits are just like that. Bits are a battery that stores the labor required to create the order of bits. Content production is the opposite of entropy and to defeat entropy, we must take energy from outside the system. The artist in this metaphor is the closed system -- the artist's brain is the system that creates the content. The consumer is outside that system and must put energy into it in the form of food so that artist can use that energy to create order from a disordered set of random bits. Money is that energy required to oppose entropy. Without a transfer of energy, there is no way to create order. Without order, there is no content. It's just white noise and consumers don't want that... If consumers don't pay for the content, where will the energy to produce it come from?
- 0ffworlder 16y ago
  If as you say "consumers really need more self control", then why does the content itself encourage the sort of apathy that you appear to be so opposed to? Look at most any torrent (latest Hollywood garbage, warez TPB top 100) and they are all encouraging apathy. However, how a bout this -- what if torrents are encouraging efficiency. Think about this, the top (could have changed since I have been typing this) torrent on TPB is the 1080p version of avatar. Never mind all of the gag tv torrents That is 10900mbyte/(20mbit/sec/8(to mbyte))=4954.5sec (assuming.05mbit overhead 4954.5sec/60 = 82.6 min. So a bit more than an hour. What about going to purchase avatar 1080p on blu-ray? Thats waiting for the bus/paying for gas or buying it on amazon for $20 (with insane DRM restrictions) so: waiting 80min to get a file that will play as many times as I want on whatever I want vs. waiting 48 hours for amazon to ship it out on a good day...
- doki_pen 16y ago
  I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over. Before you decide to enter a public forum and argue, at least you should research the oppositions argument. I'm not going to rehash it here. It's already taking up to much space on the internet. Please read "Free Software, Free Society" and then make your argument. You sound silly comparing stealing to copyright infringement.
  - fnid2 16y ago
    I don't believe that two products are different simply because one is represented in bronze and the other in bits. No one would suggest it is okay to steal a bronze sculpture. I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. If you don't believe it is stealing because of some semantic argument, then it the effect is the same -- you're taking something of value without paying for it and harm is caused to the market in which that product exists because value is lost.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. What, in your opinion, happens when I check a book out of the library and read it?
      - fnid2 16y ago
        It's called "checking out a book" or you could use the term "borrowing." Look, this "it's not stealing" argument is a bunch of hog wash. If you think it isn't stealing because the "stolen" goods are simply a copy, why do you use the term "piracy"? Did pirates make a copy of the loot? When you say someone is stealing music -- everyone knows what is happening. People use the same term with cable television -- they're stealing cable. It means they are enjoying the benefits of cable -- without paying the cable company. You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  OK, you hold a legitimate view, one I mostly share. However, please stop equating 'loss of potential sale' with simple theft. Clearly, if I take one of your DVDs, it is lost to you. If I copy a digital file of the same movie, you still have the use of your own copy. Now from a publisher's point of view, what TPB is doing is not so much depriving them of movies or other content, but interfering with their right to bring it to market at a price of their choosing - if the same software is easily available for $0, there is little incentive to purchase it. (We can argue about whether the purchase would ever have taken place; eg if a student downloads some high-end 3d modelling software to learn how to use it, but that's been addressed elsewhere.) This is an extreme case of the ongoing economic struggle between publishers and distributors in general.
  - fnid2 16y ago
    If we have to stop calling equating it with stealing, then we also have to stop equating it with piracy, because pirates didn't make copies of the goods they stole either.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Somehow "piracy" bugs me less, I think because in this context the usages are different enough that there isn't as much likely confusion. When someone calls copyright infringement "stealing", they often seem to mean it pretty literally: they really do believe that it is, or should be, morally and legally identical to stealing. But when they call it "piracy", I don't usually take it as an actual assertion that copying a DVD is morally identical to armed raids on shipping. It's just become sort of a jargon term disconnected from the original usage.
Qz 16y ago
...and there's literally no risk to get caught. I know someone who got sued, so I wouldn't say there's no risk.
- chc 16y ago
  Was this Kazaa-style sharing or Bittorrent sharing? The distinction is important when it comes to risk.
  - Qz 16y ago
    Good point -- it was on that i2hub program that used to be popular in college back in 2004-ish, so not torrents.
  - kaens 16y ago
    Not if the distinction is between "literally no" and "effectively no"
Tycho 16y ago
Spotify puzzles me. How can it be sustainable? For my listening purposes, the free version is more than adequate. I don't mind listening to a new album with two or three interruptions for adverts (just turn the volume down), and I don't mind needing to be near a computer to hear the music (I have good comp speakers). I subscribed to the service for a while but didn't renew it because I'm happy with the free service. Post-Spotify, the only reason for me to spend money on the music industry is to 'support' their efforts. Previously I would happily pay for an album if that was the only legal option. And even if you do subscribe - £10 per month? I think anyone who loves music enough to really take advantage of the service could justify spending £40-£100 per month. I don't get it. I'd like to see their revenues. And the opportunity costs. I have three theories 1)They plan to wean the public off any/all illegal filesharing by offering a far superior service for next to nothing. Then, when the public has sufficiently 'de-skilled' from piracy, they will start raising prices without losing customers. 2) They've decided the battle against piracy is futile and they're settling for a tragically reduced ROI over potentially nothing at all. 3) It's a massive blunder.
- wmf 16y ago
  I read somewhere that Spotify is saving money by paying virtually no royalties.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    I heard a thousand listens is enough to buy the author/artist a cup of tea. Today I discovered another service We7.com, which allegedly offers the same range of music as Spotify but with less adverts and without the need for software client (works through browser). And supposedly pays full royalties AND turns a profit. A fourth theory could be that Apple have been planning such a service for years and labels want to beat them to the punch by backing Spotify et al
- erikstarck 16y ago
  I've been an early beta tester and became premium member when they launched their mobile version (which you must pay to use). Now whenever I hear someone with the ad supporter version I don't understand how they can stand all the commercials. I think they have about 5% paying customers which is pretty high. Considering they have a few million users it adds up to quite some revenue.

fnid2 16y ago

I don't think "that's the simplest way to get it" is a valid argument. The simplest way to get flowers is to pick them out of someone's flower bed, but we don't advocate that. For me, it's more philosophical. Consumers need to some self control. We are consuming everything without conscience -- because that's the easiest way. It's easy to eat fish, so the oceans are going to run out. It's easy to consume oil, so the gulf is polluted. It's easy to bit torrent content so people do. But it does cause problems. Some people don't want their content consumed in that way. To respond to some other commenters below, it doesn't matter if studies show only the middle men are hurt, middlemen are important for the distribution of content and much content wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the middlemen -- they need jobs too. As for the argument that "people pay after they download it" -- that's simply not true. I know tons of people who download thousands of movies and redistribute them on limewire and never pay for a single one. If you want to watch a movie and the only way to get it is to use netflix or blockbuster (both middle men) then go there and get it. If you can't get it there or you're too lazy to drive there or you don't subscribe to netflix, then don't watch the movie! Do something productive with your time. Control your desires to consume stuff you haven't supported.

joshfinnie 16y ago
I think people of our technological knowledge get sick and tired of screaming from the rooftops that we will watch streaming tv with commercials or listen to unlimited music for $10 a month and being shot down with a limit of the 5 newest episodes or limitations to spotify. Unfortunately, bit torrent is the easiest way and if I am walking to my mother's and the florist only allows five flowers and I want the whole dozen, the neighbor's flower bed is a nice option.
- fnid2 16y ago
  If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home. Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway? Are you serious? Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy. The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both. Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this. Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead. It will just take a while longer before we get there. Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there. I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.
hxa7241 16y ago
> it's more philosophical ... We are consuming everything without conscience The crucial difference is that, unlike most physical things, informational copies are an infinite resource. The only essential moral action is to share them freely. Whether that causes problems is entirely conditional on particular economic systems. It is indeed also true that supporting production is moral. But producing and sharing are not negatively dependent. If you don't do one, it doesn't do any good to then not do the other. They are mutually supportive: you should do both, and doing either you indirectly support the other.
- fnid2 16y ago
  1) Informational copies aren't infinite, they take server space, electricity, and maintenance. 2) and more importantly, how do you overcome the hurdle that production itself requires resource consumption? Stuff at the lower level of Maslow's hierarchy: Food, Shelter? Producing quality content requires investment. How is a producer of that content to get a return on that investment if people don't pay for the product after it is produced? I agree that we should all produce and share, but not all sharers produce. Just because you have the bits on your hard drive does not mean the product those bits define are yours to share. Those bits are not simply bits, they are the definition of something that creates value. It takes risk to create the order of ones and zeros and if that risk is not rewarded, then the risk/reward ratio becomes too high and there is no incentive to take the risk to create the product. I know that many people create for the love of the game, but those creators have to make money somehow. They have to have day jobs or something that distracts them from the many hours it takes to create quality content. If they could get paid for the content after it is produced, then they could spend more time creating more quality content for us to consume. There was a quote from Ayn Rand about money where she describes money as a battery that stores labor so we can benefit from that labor over a longer time than it takes to perform the labor. Well, those bits are just like that. Bits are a battery that stores the labor required to create the order of bits. Content production is the opposite of entropy and to defeat entropy, we must take energy from outside the system. The artist in this metaphor is the closed system -- the artist's brain is the system that creates the content. The consumer is outside that system and must put energy into it in the form of food so that artist can use that energy to create order from a disordered set of random bits. Money is that energy required to oppose entropy. Without a transfer of energy, there is no way to create order. Without order, there is no content. It's just white noise and consumers don't want that... If consumers don't pay for the content, where will the energy to produce it come from?
0ffworlder 16y ago
If as you say "consumers really need more self control", then why does the content itself encourage the sort of apathy that you appear to be so opposed to? Look at most any torrent (latest Hollywood garbage, warez TPB top 100) and they are all encouraging apathy. However, how a bout this -- what if torrents are encouraging efficiency. Think about this, the top (could have changed since I have been typing this) torrent on TPB is the 1080p version of avatar. Never mind all of the gag tv torrents That is 10900mbyte/(20mbit/sec/8(to mbyte))=4954.5sec (assuming.05mbit overhead 4954.5sec/60 = 82.6 min. So a bit more than an hour. What about going to purchase avatar 1080p on blu-ray? Thats waiting for the bus/paying for gas or buying it on amazon for $20 (with insane DRM restrictions) so: waiting 80min to get a file that will play as many times as I want on whatever I want vs. waiting 48 hours for amazon to ship it out on a good day...
doki_pen 16y ago
I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over. Before you decide to enter a public forum and argue, at least you should research the oppositions argument. I'm not going to rehash it here. It's already taking up to much space on the internet. Please read "Free Software, Free Society" and then make your argument. You sound silly comparing stealing to copyright infringement.
- fnid2 16y ago
  I don't believe that two products are different simply because one is represented in bronze and the other in bits. No one would suggest it is okay to steal a bronze sculpture. I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. If you don't believe it is stealing because of some semantic argument, then it the effect is the same -- you're taking something of value without paying for it and harm is caused to the market in which that product exists because value is lost.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    I've heard the arguments and when you take something without compensating the creator -- or otherwise rightful owner -- it's stealing. What, in your opinion, happens when I check a book out of the library and read it?
    - fnid2 16y ago
      It's called "checking out a book" or you could use the term "borrowing." Look, this "it's not stealing" argument is a bunch of hog wash. If you think it isn't stealing because the "stolen" goods are simply a copy, why do you use the term "piracy"? Did pirates make a copy of the loot? When you say someone is stealing music -- everyone knows what is happening. People use the same term with cable television -- they're stealing cable. It means they are enjoying the benefits of cable -- without paying the cable company. You can use whatever term you want for the behavior -- we all know what it is and why it isn't right and it is just as wrong as stealing IMO.
anigbrowl 16y ago
OK, you hold a legitimate view, one I mostly share. However, please stop equating 'loss of potential sale' with simple theft. Clearly, if I take one of your DVDs, it is lost to you. If I copy a digital file of the same movie, you still have the use of your own copy. Now from a publisher's point of view, what TPB is doing is not so much depriving them of movies or other content, but interfering with their right to bring it to market at a price of their choosing - if the same software is easily available for $0, there is little incentive to purchase it. (We can argue about whether the purchase would ever have taken place; eg if a student downloads some high-end 3d modelling software to learn how to use it, but that's been addressed elsewhere.) This is an extreme case of the ongoing economic struggle between publishers and distributors in general.
- fnid2 16y ago
  If we have to stop calling equating it with stealing, then we also have to stop equating it with piracy, because pirates didn't make copies of the goods they stole either.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Somehow "piracy" bugs me less, I think because in this context the usages are different enough that there isn't as much likely confusion. When someone calls copyright infringement "stealing", they often seem to mean it pretty literally: they really do believe that it is, or should be, morally and legally identical to stealing. But when they call it "piracy", I don't usually take it as an actual assertion that copying a DVD is morally identical to armed raids on shipping. It's just become sort of a jargon term disconnected from the original usage.

Qz 16y ago

...and there's literally no risk to get caught. I know someone who got sued, so I wouldn't say there's no risk.

chc 16y ago
Was this Kazaa-style sharing or Bittorrent sharing? The distinction is important when it comes to risk.
- Qz 16y ago
  Good point -- it was on that i2hub program that used to be popular in college back in 2004-ish, so not torrents.
- kaens 16y ago
  Not if the distinction is between "literally no" and "effectively no"

Tycho 16y ago

Spotify puzzles me. How can it be sustainable? For my listening purposes, the free version is more than adequate. I don't mind listening to a new album with two or three interruptions for adverts (just turn the volume down), and I don't mind needing to be near a computer to hear the music (I have good comp speakers). I subscribed to the service for a while but didn't renew it because I'm happy with the free service. Post-Spotify, the only reason for me to spend money on the music industry is to 'support' their efforts. Previously I would happily pay for an album if that was the only legal option. And even if you do subscribe - £10 per month? I think anyone who loves music enough to really take advantage of the service could justify spending £40-£100 per month. I don't get it. I'd like to see their revenues. And the opportunity costs. I have three theories 1)They plan to wean the public off any/all illegal filesharing by offering a far superior service for next to nothing. Then, when the public has sufficiently 'de-skilled' from piracy, they will start raising prices without losing customers. 2) They've decided the battle against piracy is futile and they're settling for a tragically reduced ROI over potentially nothing at all. 3) It's a massive blunder.

wmf 16y ago
I read somewhere that Spotify is saving money by paying virtually no royalties.
- Tycho 16y ago
  I heard a thousand listens is enough to buy the author/artist a cup of tea. Today I discovered another service We7.com, which allegedly offers the same range of music as Spotify but with less adverts and without the need for software client (works through browser). And supposedly pays full royalties AND turns a profit. A fourth theory could be that Apple have been planning such a service for years and labels want to beat them to the punch by backing Spotify et al
erikstarck 16y ago
I've been an early beta tester and became premium member when they launched their mobile version (which you must pay to use). Now whenever I hear someone with the ad supporter version I don't understand how they can stand all the commercials. I think they have about 5% paying customers which is pretty high. Considering they have a few million users it adds up to quite some revenue.