4 ms·

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 majorit

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.
      - moe 14y ago
        So why are we even talking about piracy? That's what I asked you. Who is, really? Sources? I'll give you one from my side: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_b... This bullshit Robin Hood You know what's bullshit? People who can't even form their simplistic world-view into a coherent argument and try to compensate by charging up each of their comments with random insults. What is your solution to the piracy issue? Tougher laws? 3 Strikes? What do you propose when this doesn't work (for which we have strong indication)?
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)?

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.
    - moe 14y ago
      So why are we even talking about piracy? That's what I asked you. Who is, really? Sources? I'll give you one from my side: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_b... This bullshit Robin Hood You know what's bullshit? People who can't even form their simplistic world-view into a coherent argument and try to compensate by charging up each of their comments with random insults. What is your solution to the piracy issue? Tougher laws? 3 Strikes? What do you propose when this doesn't work (for which we have strong indication)?

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)?