6 ms·

It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this

It is way too expensive It's hard to compete with $0, which is the price that thieves are willing to pay. You may be kicking and screaming after reading this paragraph I'm not in the music industry. I'm not in the movie industry. I would benefit, financially, from piracy by simply engaging in it myself. But, you know, I don't because I can't justify it. I find the arguments that do completely transparent and selfish. I honestly find these piracy excusing arguments sad for society as a whole: It is the tragedy of the commons, everyone taking a dump in the well simply because they can, making laughable arguments why what they're doing is justified ("If only there was a toilet every 10 feet and someone wiped my arse for me..."). It's hearing a teenager justify why they litter (it's the city's fault and McDonald's fault and their parent's fault and...). Or you can accept that the era of the middlemen (the "distributors") has ended because consumers don't want to pay for their Yacht's anymore. That the market has decided on two prices (for movies and music respectively), and that you either make do with that, or continue on your path to irrelevancy. Yachts....another adorable excuse for theft.

guard-of-terra 14y ago
Well, Russia watches Game of Thrones and we couldn't if not for pirates. This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without. Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.
- huggyface 14y ago
  The essentials of life -- life, liberty, the Game of Thrones without delay. Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    It's not a question of essentials. It is a question of are we becoming a better society by pirating Game of Thrones? Yes we do. So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
  - moe 14y ago
    You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it. You also seem to assume nobody wants to pay for anything that they can get for free. Neither is true. People want to support their artists, they just want different infrastructure than what is available today. Personally I have bought multiple physical books on amazon after reading the pirated ebook. I didn't even bother to unbox them after they arrived. It would have been easier for me if the books had been available on amazon as ebooks in first place. Likewise, when I hear a song that I like (e.g. on youtube or soundcloud) then often I'd spontaneously tip the artist $1, or $5, or just $0.10 - if only I could. This all may sound foreign to you, but I promise you this is where we are heading. The new platforms emerge as we speak, and slowly replace the old cruft. Evolution at work; your choice is to either adapt or die, it really is as simple as that.
    - batista 14y ago
      >You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it. No, it's not a god given right. It's a right given to them by the artists. You know, those "other's that create".
      - moe 14y ago
        The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods. You know, the 99% that didn't get a major deal in the past or that have been strangled by buy-out contracts and "less than fair" revenue shares. If you have other data then I'd be curious to see it. My impression is that complaints only ever originate from mainstream artists, major labels or lobby-groups. I have yet to see a small band or indy speak up against the demise of the major labels.
        huggyface 14y ago
        Wow, you really are pulling out all the best for this discussion. "The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods." So why are we even talking about piracy? Clearly these people are pursuing alternative distribution models, relying upon concerts or whatever, etc. Therefore the torrents are full of legally allowed sharing. That's right, right? Surely it must be. Of course that's not reality at all. This bullshit Robin Hood act is yet another adorable piracy defense technique.
  - hythloday 14y ago
    I don't know if you really have a consistent argument here. If the infringed content is so trivial, if it provides zero cultural value at all, why is there a social benefit to legally protecting it? If there is a cultural value, at what point does preventing a group of people from benefiting from the culture become antisocial? Do you think that the current limits are exactly right (and thus, you would oppose an extension to copyright term)?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 14y ago
Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves. By the way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...
- huggyface 14y ago
  Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves. Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan. There are a world of studies available for consideration. When you see the same study (by the reputable Norwegian School of Business, no less) referenced over, and over, and over again, it is kind of telling.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    It's telling in that nobody pays to show what the industry doesn't want to see. Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan. Well, piracy is. "Piracy" isn't, just like rape or murder isn't theft. Good or bad, it's not theft.
    - J3L2404 14y ago
      The problem is the basis of the defense of piracy is that it is trivial to copy. Lots of the things are trivial to copy, like your private data.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        You don't need to defend free transmission of information. Freedom is the default state. It's the people who want to restrict freedom who have to make their case. And in my opinion their arguments, under the current context, are not strong enough. Arguments against the copying of private information are.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

Well, Russia watches Game of Thrones and we couldn't if not for pirates. This makes me un-sad for society as whole. We become richer from piracy than we could be without. Martin sells much more books in Russia right now than he would without the TV series, and HBO aren't losing money because they don't want our money anyway.

huggyface 14y ago
The essentials of life -- life, liberty, the Game of Thrones without delay. Even if I accepted that argument, it has perilously little validity for the majority of participants in English language piracy discussions.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  It's not a question of essentials. It is a question of are we becoming a better society by pirating Game of Thrones? Yes we do. So you are going to disregard me just like HBO already did. Why should not I?
- moe 14y ago
  You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it. You also seem to assume nobody wants to pay for anything that they can get for free. Neither is true. People want to support their artists, they just want different infrastructure than what is available today. Personally I have bought multiple physical books on amazon after reading the pirated ebook. I didn't even bother to unbox them after they arrived. It would have been easier for me if the books had been available on amazon as ebooks in first place. Likewise, when I hear a song that I like (e.g. on youtube or soundcloud) then often I'd spontaneously tip the artist $1, or $5, or just $0.10 - if only I could. This all may sound foreign to you, but I promise you this is where we are heading. The new platforms emerge as we speak, and slowly replace the old cruft. Evolution at work; your choice is to either adapt or die, it really is as simple as that.
  - batista 14y ago
    >You say that as if there's a godgiven right for distributors to make money from art that others create, and for said distributors to decide when a given market is allowed to have access to it. No, it's not a god given right. It's a right given to them by the artists. You know, those "other's that create".
    - moe 14y ago
      The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods. You know, the 99% that didn't get a major deal in the past or that have been strangled by buy-out contracts and "less than fair" revenue shares. If you have other data then I'd be curious to see it. My impression is that complaints only ever originate from mainstream artists, major labels or lobby-groups. I have yet to see a small band or indy speak up against the demise of the major labels.
      - huggyface 14y ago
        Wow, you really are pulling out all the best for this discussion. "The majority of artists seems to be very happy with the emerging distribution methods." So why are we even talking about piracy? Clearly these people are pursuing alternative distribution models, relying upon concerts or whatever, etc. Therefore the torrents are full of legally allowed sharing. That's right, right? Surely it must be. Of course that's not reality at all. This bullshit Robin Hood act is yet another adorable piracy defense technique.
- hythloday 14y ago
  I don't know if you really have a consistent argument here. If the infringed content is so trivial, if it provides zero cultural value at all, why is there a social benefit to legally protecting it? If there is a cultural value, at what point does preventing a group of people from benefiting from the culture become antisocial? Do you think that the current limits are exactly right (and thus, you would oppose an extension to copyright term)?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 14y ago

Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves. By the way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...

huggyface 14y ago
Downvoted for flamebait, by erroneously calling people thieves. Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan. There are a world of studies available for consideration. When you see the same study (by the reputable Norwegian School of Business, no less) referenced over, and over, and over again, it is kind of telling.
- icebraining 14y ago
  It's telling in that nobody pays to show what the industry doesn't want to see. Oh right...piracy isn't theft, right? Physical goods and all. Groan. Well, piracy is. "Piracy" isn't, just like rape or murder isn't theft. Good or bad, it's not theft.
  - J3L2404 14y ago
    The problem is the basis of the defense of piracy is that it is trivial to copy. Lots of the things are trivial to copy, like your private data.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      You don't need to defend free transmission of information. Freedom is the default state. It's the people who want to restrict freedom who have to make their case. And in my opinion their arguments, under the current context, are not strong enough. Arguments against the copying of private information are.