Latest News Article

[JohnnyColbert]

Well until there's a way to completely stop people from redistributing, people are going to keep on doing it. Because they can.

[Beltir]

JohnnyColbert, on 01 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Well until there's a way to completely stop people from redistributing, people are going to keep on doing it. Because they can.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should though, and that's what we're discussing in this thread. Not the legality of it, but whether it is good or bad.

[Tormented]

AramilTheElf, on 31 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Yes, the point of pirating is to access something that the owner does not want you to access. However, for the purpose of the analogy, the fact that the person is asking the manager does not change the functionality of the analogy.

As I had said and explained, it does vastly change the functionality of the analogy, no point in repeating what I had said. But, if you want me to quote it again then I shall happily do so.

Quote

I apologize if I missed something in your last post, I usually read what you say then split it into manageable quotes, rereading as I refute. I have reread that section and I still don't understand why the ferris wheel analogy is functionally different than pirating. Both result in the owner of the product not gaining money that the owner would normally have gained, thus incurring a net "loss" of money.

You must not simply look at the end result, you need to check the specific process that leads to the end result. The process or means to the end is what we call pirating, pirating is not the end result where you end up with an illegal product regardless of the means. You need to pirate the product or else you're just using a pirated copy, in which case it has nothing to do with the subject at hand as this person would not be participating in piracy (the process). In the ferris wheel analogy, you are ignoring the vital part of piracy that makes it what it is, specifically downloading and using an illegal copy of a product without the consent of the producer, without paying the producer, and without the knowledge of the producer through alternative channels and not direct channels (off a torrent and not the author's website).

Quote

In any case, the analogy is not really the focus of the debate, so unless the analogy further serves either of us as a debate point, I don't feel that continuing to debate whether the analogy works really is relevant. If you feel like continuing, go ahead, but I'd rather focus on the main issue.

It really isn't, but you brought the analogy up to make a relation and thus a point through that and I had to reply to show you that the two are completely different in anything but the end result (which is useless eitherway as if we are to define it according to the end result then we'd have to lump in sharing, copying, backups, borrowing, lending, neighbor's window example, and theft, etc. into the fray and thus be piracy). Until we can come to a conclusion on the analogy then we can't focus on the main issue as we need to settle this issue to not cause problems in the debate later on as we clearly have a different conception of piracy - I believe piracy entails downloading and using the product with all the attributes explained above while you seem to believe that it entails simply using an illegal copy of a product regardless of the means to obtain it.

Quote

To answer the latter question, no, I cannot give statistics, as there have been no studies on this that I am aware of of. And again, we reach an impasse if that becomes the core of the argument.

And that is exactly my argument, purely because you cannot (or anyone can) give a statistic of something that is not even existent at the present moment then you cannot speak of any "lost sales" as you would be venturing into vague stick-in-bush blanket rules and terms, as is happening. If these "sales" (given) do not exist at the present moment then they cannot become "lost sales" because there is no given, it's as simple as that. If you even try to define the "lost sales", you need to find a certain sample population that is to be the "sales" and there you enter into a can of worms and disaster.

Quote

However, it is not ridiculous to apply a blanket rule over something of this nature. When a song is pirated when it would have been bought, the owner of the song and his/her affiliated workers are not getting money that they would have gotten.

It is absolutely ridiculous to apply a blanket rules "over something of this nature".
And that argument is invalid because in the first place there is no assurance that any of those pirates would have bought the song. They could have simply downloaded it because it was free where without piracy they would have no even bothered buying it. It is because of that simple concept that I can state that what you base that specific argument upon is shaky and wrong. When a song is pirated, there is no proof, evidence, assurance, or anything that the song "would have been bought  and ergo "the owner of the song and his/her affiliated workers are not getting money that they would have gotten."

Quote

I have said this before. I highly doubt that every pirated product is a lost sale, but I have no doubt that many are. No, you cannot determine who would have bought the song and who wouldn't - that's why a blanket rule is necessary. Without one, the music industry will collapse, as if everyone pirated it would make no money.

You cannot prove that unless you can look into the future and because it is impossible to look into the future, it is impossible to prove that. So as long as I'm considered, there is no such thing as a lost sale. If you want to argue otherwise then you will have to either start reading minds (still faulty) or looking into the future (perfect). You having "no doubt that many are [lost sales]" is completely baseless and nonsensical, you cannot even prove that any of them are even sales to begin with. It is exactly because we "cannot determine who would have bought the song and who wouldn't" that a blanket rule is not only unnecessary but flawed and wrong. A blanket rule such as the anti-piracy rule would take as a given that every pirated copy is a lost sale, that is quite evidently false. You cannot claim that a pirated copy can be a lost sale because, as I had said, you cannot by ANY MEANS ensure that a sale can even be ensured unless we can somehow look into the future, take out piracy, and then stop time completely and check each individual by turn. For all we know, people would not have bought any of the pirated products they would have downloaded if they had to pay for them, if there was no alternative known as pirating. That is to say even without pirating then you cannot have the given for "lost sales".

Quote

But you are incurring an indirect harm on the company managing the song. Pirates are not buying songs that they may have otherwise bought, and thus the company is not getting money it may have otherwise got, thus indirect harm. A bought song is just as likely to increase the fanbase and word of mouth as a pirated one, so that part is irrelevant.

I am absolutely incurring no harm on the company that manages the song because they are NOT losing any sales whatsoever because such sales do. not. exist. Pirates are not buying songs that they may have otherwise bought? I see that you included "may", but nevertheless, no. I could argue that the only reason the pirates downloaded the song is because it was free and that if they had to pay then they need not even have bought it. The concept of "lost sales" is extremely vague. A bought song is not "just as likely to increase the fanbase and word of mouth as a pirated one", I'd also argue that since pirated products are free and easily redistributable then the increase of the fanbase and word of mouth can be much higher than when products are bought. Why? Because you essentially remove all the barriers on entry by making the product free, redistributable , and available on the internet for anyone.

Quote

No, buying the product is not the only option, that is true. However, it is an option, a major one, which many, many people use and would certainly use more if they were not able to pirate. No, not every pirated song is a sale lost. But many are. And as I've explained above, that results in a net loss for those companies.

[citation needed]
No, I'm not ignoring you argument at all, I never do that, but I'm just interested to see how you can prove that pirated songs are lost sales when, as I had said, pirates have numerous alternatives other than pirating to obtain the song without even paying a cent and explained that pirates could not even buy the product if they are to spend money on it (restriction on entry). Buying the product may or may not be a major option, but as I had already stated, there are numerous other options available if we are to do away with pirating.

Quote

Yes, it's possible to make money from other sources - but you can't force companies to choose how to make money. If the companies choose to make money in one way, using their product in a way they do not authorize its use is wrong.

Simply saying that it "is wrong" is not much of an argument, sorry.

Quote

If you don't like the way they're doing it, don't buy their product. If you want their product, it's clearly not important enough to you that you don't like their product.

Actually, if I want their product but cannot afford it, what then? If I want their product but claim that it is way overpriced and have a different value in mind for it, what then? What if I don't like the way they're doing it, but I do want it? I can't simply not but their product, I need it but I disagree with "the way they're doing it", the price, or I cannot afford it.

Quote

You can't force companies to change their ways by pirating their product - imagine if someone started selling Macs undercover, or any other physical product.

Pirates don't really care about companies changing their ways through piracy, they generally do not have such an organized and structured objective in mind, although some have resorted to piracy in protest against DRM. Oh and economically and logically, if you do pirate then companies are forced to change their ways accordingly in an attempt to attract more customers.

Oh and also:
http://www.twopotscr...g_communism.jpg
http://david.stadelm...5_communism.jpg

[Abandon_Ships]

My gosh, this isn't a hard concept. Saying Piracy is stealing is saying that the basis of stealing is that the company is at a loss of something that they had in the first place. The companies didn't have anything in the first place, they just EXPECT a profit, that doesn't mean they get it. Also, it is not guaranteed that every person that pirates would have/would not have bought the product. Therefore, you cannot lay down a blanket rule and assume one way or the other. Piracy does not take anything that the Company had in the first place, and they are not at a loss because nothing was ever taken from them. Therefore, Piracy is not stealing. It is still illegal, and wrong, but it is not stealing.

Also, why can one site sell an entire album for $1.50, but another site sells it for $11 to $15 dollars?

http://musparade.com/artist/Lil+Wayne sells these albums at around $1.50.

http://www.amazon.co...words=lil wayne sells the same albums at 10 DOLLARS AND MORE!

can somebody tell me why this is?! Please, I want to know! If sites like musparade were more popular and music was at these prices, then piracy in the music industry would almost be non-existant!

[CosmicSpore]

rist_violin, on 01 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

It is still illegal, and wrong, but it is not stealing.

Care to explain how it is 'wrong' when you don't consider it stealing?

rist_violin, on 01 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Also, why can one site sell an entire album for $1.50, but another site sells it for $11 to $15 dollars?

http://musparade.com/artist/Lil+Wayne sells these albums at around $1.50.

http://www.amazon.co...words=lil wayne sells the same albums at 10 DOLLARS AND MORE!

can somebody tell me why this is?! Please, I want to know! If sites like musparade were more popular and music was at these prices, then piracy in the music industry would almost be non-existant!

It's just how Capitalism works.... Prices are based on what people will pay for them, and who they will pay them to. They have absolutely nothing to do with the actual value of the product being sold.

[duck55223]

I only pirate games
And thats if they have DRM



(Im looking at you Ubisoft and EA)

[User]

The way buying music, video games, movies, or pretty much any other media should be handled (in my opinion) would be where you can download whatever you want. If you like the artist or company, you can pay them as much as you want to continue making products.

[MiracleMouse]

rist_violin, on 01 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

If sites like musparade were more popular and music was at these prices, then piracy in the music industry would almost be non-existant!

Not trying to nit pick you to death man, and I am sorry if it seems that way, but I totally disagree with this.  I think most people pirate out of simple ease.  Its easier to grab a torrent off of one of a couple hundred reputable sites, than it is to track down a store that sells your game, movie, etc.  Its also easier in most cases to grab a torrent than it is to buy something off steam.

Also its free.  Anytime I can save a single penny I will take the opportunity.  Now I don't pretend to speak for everyone when I say that, but I think the American people are in compliance that something for nothing is better than the same something for a buck.

I don't think piracy is so much affected by prices as much as it would have been say ten to fifteen years ago.  I think now a days its just easier to grab a torrent and go.

Oh and..

Tormented, on 01 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Snip

The funny thing about a turd is that no matter how many times you paint it gold, its still a turd.  Piracy is illegal.  Its illegal because the majority decided that it is in fact taking something without properly compensating the owner.

I've read most your rebuttals, they are mere sugar coated statements to the effect that piracy isn't bad because its not hurting anyone and no sales are lost because they would not have bought the pirated material anyway.

This seems to be the popular argument.  A very good argument indeed.  As the entertainment industry has not really slowed down in sales and has actually increased quite dramatically.

My only rebuttal to this is that an author to a song, for instance, publishes his work.  He sells his albums and collects a percentage per album sold.  Lets say the album get huge.  Lets say he makes millions.  Obviously if its that good people are going to pirate it.  That's an assumed, but for the sake of the discussion lets say its a given.

Now, some feel he is not entitled to any compensation as there is no actual property lost and no sale was lost in the piracy as there was not going to be a sale anyway.  Although the latter is a mere assumption.

So what was lost?  Well, the authors time was lost.  The time spent creating that song.  The value of that time is not set but rather an ever increasing variable as people continue to pay for the song.

As you admitted, there are a plethora of free sources one could use to enjoy the song, IE the radio, Pandora, Youtube, and others.  So why pirate?  People pirate the song to have the convenience to listen to it at their leisure.  Which is the same thing you are purchasing when you buy the album.  You are not buying the music or the rights to it.  But if you read the EULA you are merely buying the rights to listen to the song at your leisure in privacy.

My point is whether a sale would have been lost or not, it does not change the fact that something was obtained without compensating the owner(s) for obtaining it.  Whether its an issue of time or rights or something else.

Now I will admit, I don't think its a huge deal, but at the same time there needs to be a check and balance to keep it from getting out of hand.  I am not sure what out of hand would be, and I don't think our society has reached that point, the entertainment industry still being more successful than ever is a prime example, but sometimes a preemptive strike is necessary to prevent a disaster.

Again, I am not arguing the morality of the situation, just merely arguing the idea that its ok because there is no loss.

As far as morality, eh, I am on the fence leaning towards, "should not be done."

[Tormented]

Only replied to the relevant parts with arguments, if I missed anything crucial then please point it out and I'll reply to it.

MiracleMouse, on 02 November 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

The funny thing about a turd is that no matter how many times you paint it gold, its still a turd.  Piracy is illegal.  Its illegal because the majority decided that it is in fact taking something without properly compensating the owner.

Piracy is illegal because statesmen decided it should be illegal. Statesmen are an extreme minority if compared to the rest of the population. Claiming that "the majority" decided so would entail having an actual majority deciding on this, i.e. the people, but that is certainly not the case.

Quote

My only rebuttal to this is that an author to a song, for instance, publishes his work.  He sells his albums and collects a percentage per album sold.  Lets say the album get huge.  Lets say he makes millions.  Obviously if its that good people are going to pirate it.  That's an assumed, but for the sake of the discussion lets say its a given.

So what was lost?  Well, the authors time was lost.  The time spent creating that song.  The value of that time is not set but rather an ever increasing variable as people continue to pay for the song.

The author losing his time is much more preferable than having thousands or millions being unable to access a product of interest due to several restrictions in place made by the author. It becomes a monopoly on creativity when the author puts in restrictions on his creations. The author losing his time is really not much of an argument, authors who go bankrupt tend to also lose all of their spent time as well, are we to compensate them? Having spent time not reach fruition is not really an argument. Now, having spent time not reach fruition due to piracy is bordering on the edge of the fantasy of the "lost sale" argument, as you later do. If we are to speak of values, the value is actually set into each song he produces and each song that is copied, one does not need to buy the song to place a value on it. The author places his own value on the product, others can value the product quite differently and thus resort to piracy if they so need it. If we are to speak of non-economics value as worth then this worth would increase when the product is pirated as well, not just bought.

Quote

As you admitted, there are a plethora of free sources one could use to enjoy the song, IE the radio, Pandora, Youtube, and others.  So why pirate?  People pirate the song to have the convenience to listen to it at their leisure.  Which is the same thing you are purchasing when you buy the album.  You are not buying the music or the rights to it.  But if you read the EULA you are merely buying the rights to listen to the song at your leisure in privacy.

Never said otherwise.

Quote

My point is whether a sale would have been lost or not, it does not change the fact that something was obtained without compensating the owner(s) for obtaining it.  Whether its an issue of time or rights or something else.

Again, there are numerous reasons why the author was chosen not to be compensated be it the pirate's choice (not being able to afford it, differing value of it, etc.) or laws and conditions outside of the pirate's hands (country sanctioned, not available in country, etc. I really do not see why an author should be compensated if the consumer does not choose to. Not using the product is not really an option in many cases. Now, the products used that do not compensate the creator is not really much of an issue as the pirates are not obtaining the product directly from the creator, but copies from other pirates as in the case of torrents. I do not believe in placing restrictions on entry when it comes to virtual goods. As for compensating the creators of the product, I don't see why that should happen if the product is pirated, it's not a product that is licensed by the creator in the first place. If people wanted to compensate the creator then they would have bought the product, but they don't, why? Numerous reasons, really.

[Abandon_Ships]

CosmicSpore, on 01 November 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Care to explain how it is 'wrong' when you don't consider it stealing?

Because you are using a digital item that you would normally have to pay for without paying for it.

Stealing only occurs when the person on the other end loses something. When piracy takes place, the other end loses nothing, because the item was never bought.

The main thing with piracy is that there is an infinite supply of said game/song/book/etc.

So it's technically not stealing, because they never lose any item.

[MiracleMouse]

Tormented, on 02 November 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

I really do not see why an author should be compensated if the consumer does not choose to.

So, and correct me if I am wrong, you are stating piracy should be legal because there is no physical property taken?  The problem with this mentality is that is has the potential to lead to a very poor entertainment industry very quickly, if not controlled.  Especially with movies.

This is a slippery slope admittedly, but the potential problem, is that you will end up with a select few who will purchase the album and the rest will simply pirate it.  Same with movies and games.  I am sure we both can think of several possible negative outcomes to follow.

But why stop with just entertainment?  Hmm, I'll by the windows to my house and all the materials need to install them, you install them, and eh, I might pay you if I value your time...  Is that not along the same lines?  Should a mans time not be compensated?

The only difference between the above and an artist, is that most laborers have a placed value of their time, figured in currency.  Artist do not have a fixed value, but rather the value is a fluctuating variable, figured in currency.

Another example, a man invents a machine.  That takes time.  He sell the patent to a company who will build and sell his machine, he will obtain a percentage of each sell.  The value of his time invested just became a fluctuating variable that increases with each sell of his invention, although he has done nothing beyond the invention.

My point, is, no matter how you put it, taking a copy of a torrented song is failing to compensate the parties involved for time and effort spent in that song being released.  Which in the US, is illegal.

So I guess, if you are asking me what is lost?  Time.  My time has value, as I assume so does yours.  I can value my time at any rate, its up to you whether you pay it or.  But taking my time without compensating me at my designated rate, well now... we'd have a problem .

Again, I cannot argue the morality of it as I am on the fence.

[Tormented]

MiracleMouse, on 02 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

So, and correct me if I am wrong, you are stating piracy should be legal because there is no physical property taken?  The problem with this mentality is that is has the potential to lead to a very poor entertainment industry very quickly, if not controlled.  Especially with movies.

This is a slippery slope admittedly, but the potential problem, is that you will end up with a select few who will purchase the album and the rest will simply pirate it.  Same with movies and games.  I am sure we both can think of several possible negative outcomes to follow.

Piracy is already available and open to anyone, rarely does anyone get prosecuted for piracy and yet, as you had already previously admitted, the music industry (and others liable to piracy) are booming. Even if piracy is illegal, people still pirate, to a large extent even. Also there is absolutely no proof that the entertainment industry with the legalization of piracy will lead to a "very poor entertainment industry" as I had already stated that alternative sources of revenue exist, that entertainment can be made for free (as is the case throughout history), and that if anything we get crappy entertainment because of the maximization of profits rather than offering quality material (note the rehashed nonsense that tends to rise up from time to time). I, as I had already stated a few pages back, as a Communist support an alternative system that favors piracy and that is what I base my arguments and such upon, I do not believe that piracy would be optimal for a Capitalist economy, but it can very well exist and even be legalized. If not legalized, piracy can be mitigated with a system of "pay as much as you want" where users can "vote" for a product by determining how much the product is worth and thus doing away with the restrictions on entry.

Quote

But why stop with just entertainment?  Hmm, I'll by the windows to my house and all the materials need to install them, you install them, and eh, I might pay you if I value your time...  Is that not along the same lines?  Should a mans time not be compensated?

Not the same line at all, why can't people stop using analogies? In the case of the windows  it has nothing to do with the issue of piracy. If you are trying to make the claim that labor-time must be compensated, then piracy does not hire or employ a worker in exchange for a sum of money as in the case of the window and thus on that very basis the analogy is faulty. I could also go on to explain how the issue of windows and labor would require a bonding contract between the worker and the employer, would require effort on the part of the worker to build this sole window while it would not require the author of a song to make every single copy as in the case of making multiple windows, etc. But nevertheless, so that you do not think I am ignoring anything, you cannot say that "you might pay" if you value my time as the wage is agreed upon by both sides in a bonding labor contract, you are not merely copy/pasting a file, you are obtaining the labor for the window from a legal source (author), etc.

Quote

The only difference between the above and an artist, is that most laborers have a placed value of their time, figured in currency.  Artist do not have a fixed value, but rather the value is a fluctuating variable, figured in currency.

I really hope you made a mistake when you said "only difference" as there are numerous differences that are much more important and significant than that as I had already showed some above.

Quote

Another example, a man invents a machine.  That takes time.  He sell the patent to a company who will build and sell his machine, he will obtain a percentage of each sell.  The value of his time invested just became a fluctuating variable that increases with each sell of his invention, although he has done nothing beyond the invention.

Stop with the analogies... What is your point here? The value of your times does not become a variable that "fluctuates" with each sale because you are not producing each and every single copy of the game including the pirated copies. You only produced the original copy and you spent your labor-time on that original copy, you did not waste time on any other copy.

Quote

My point, is, no matter how you put it, taking a copy of a torrented song is failing to compensate the parties involved for time and effort spent in that song being released.  Which in the US, is illegal.

Not at all. You would be liable to compensate the creator of a song if you are to buy the song from him, if you torrent it then that is not the case. When you torrent, you do not use the product offered by the author, from him, with his consent, or even through any "legal" means. You are obtaining the song from alternative means for different reasons and none of which require you to pay or compensate the owner. If you were to obtain the song legally then you are thus forced to compensate the creator.

Quote

So I guess, if you are asking me what is lost?  Time.  My time has value, as I assume so does yours.  I can value my time at any rate, its up to you whether you pay it or.  But taking my time without compensating me at my designated rate, well now... we'd have a problem .

You're nearing the Labor Theory of Value, but the difference here is that you completely disregard the difference between social labor-time (socially necessary labor time) and individual labor-time. Time as a value without those two concepts is baseless, you would be basically rewarding an old and slow individual for spending more time than a fast and efficient individual. Time has value, but that value is dependent on a social average (socially necessary labor-time). What you wish to "value" your time is up to you, but others will certainly disagree and that is exactly why we have piracy. No one is taking your time without compensating you because you do not produce every single copy of the product with your labor and time, especially the pirated copies.

[MiracleMouse]

You keep redirecting my point.  My point is this.  The value of time is not a set value, but I have the authority to set the value of my own time.  And yes the window installation is a valid analogy, as its specifically labor.

Lets assume the song writer of a popular song is the only party involved.  He made his own CDs and everything.  He is the sole owner of all of his intellectual property and distribution management.  He labors making the song, he labors to distribute his material (which is a song).  Lets say for every 10 sells his song is torrented by 10 people.  That's a 1 to 1 ratio, which is incredibly low as far as torrenting goes.

So you mean to tell me that this person, for all his labor is a: not entitled to compensation for his product he is selling?  And b: people are entitled to access at their leisure despite they refuse to compensate the owner?

My point is not to argue how much of what is lost?  Nor is it my argument that the entertainment industry is going to go broke, but you are saying there is nothing lost at all, by the parties involved, and this we will have to agree to disagree.  You have no basis to support there is no loss just as well there is no basis for the counter.

So the argument "there was not a sell to begin with" is baseless.  The argument "why should someone compensate the parties involved?" is purely subjective.

Here are the facts at hand.  One, if you buy a cd, rip and upload it, you just violated your EULA that you agreed to upon purchase.  Whether doing this hurts the parties involved with the cd or not, is irrelevant, its illegal because you are violating a legal agreement not to distribute this property.  Two, if you download this property whether you intended to purchase it or not, it is illegal, as its an infringement of exclusive rights in creative works.

I understand your economic views, and where as I may not agree I respect your opinions in such matters.  however here in Capitalist America well feel that any property or rights of property use should be upheld and it appears I am not alone, as the majority elected their trusted officials, and their trusted officials have made laws to reinforce my reasons.  Thus since the majority has not spoken out against the laws they still remain in effect.  Thus the majority has spoken (if only in their silence.)

So it would appear that the majority agrees that no matter what the investment is, it has value, and if you want to enjoy the results of that investment you must compensate the parties involved.

Now I will be the first to say, this wouldn't be the first time the majority has agreed on something stupid, gay marriage being illegal, as a prime example.

[Govna]

MiracleMouse, on 02 November 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

You keep redirecting my point.  My point is this.  The value of time is not a set value, but I have the authority to set the value of my own time.  And yes the window installation is a valid analogy, as its specifically labor.

The author lost no time, though. If we are to consider time of the author, then he spent one time to produce one product, the original. You are buying a copy. A copy that is heavily automated. With piracy, I'm getting a copy of the copy. The author has lost nothing. No time. No money. And certainly he didn't lose a sale. Someone already bought it for it to be put up as a download.

Quote

Lets assume the song writer of a popular song is the only party involved.  He made his own CDs and everything.  He is the sole owner of all of his intellectual property and distribution management.  He labors making the song, he labors to distribute his material (which is a song).  Lets say for every 10 sells his song is torrented by 10 people.  That's a 1 to 1 ratio, which is incredibly low as far as torrenting goes.

I'd say he was a very happy man, what with him making a successful song and it selling really well. Are we also going to say that the people who bought the song, and then share it with their friends/neighbors/family are doing something illegal? They paid for the product.

Quote

So you mean to tell me that this person, for all his labor is a: not entitled to compensation for his product he is selling?  And b: people are entitled to access at their leisure despite they refuse to compensate the owner?

I think he's saying that value is not some fixed, predertermined thing. That it is decided by the consumer, and if the consumer decides that he doesn't want to pay the author, then that is the consumer's decisions.

Quote

My point is not to argue how much of what is lost?  Nor is it my argument that the entertainment industry is going to go broke, but you are saying there is nothing lost at all, by the parties involved, and this we will have to agree to disagree.  You have no basis to support there is no loss just as well there is no basis for the counter.

Except the fact that entertainment industries are claiming that piracy is a severe problem, and yet are showing record profits.

Quote

So the argument "there was not a sell to begin with" is baseless.  The argument "why should someone compensate the parties involved?" is purely subjective.

No. The argument that, "there was a lost sale for piracy." is baseless. There is absolutely no way to prove that the sale was lost. No way to say that party x would have bought if there was no such thing as piracy.

I'm glad you recognized that we're arguing opinions here. But the cool thing about opinions is that you can also base them on facts.

Quote

Here are the facts at hand.  One, if you buy a cd, rip and upload it, you just violated your EULA that you agreed to upon purchase.  Whether doing this hurts the parties involved with the cd or not, is irrelevant, its illegal because you are violating a legal agreement not to distribute this property.  Two, if you download this property whether you intended to purchase it or not, it is illegal, as its an infringement of exclusive rights in creative works.

Why is downloading it illegal? You entered into no such contract with the originating party. You bought nothing. You paid for nothing.

And if I bought this product, paid for it fully, how can you say I cannot use it however I wish? I paid my own money for it. I own it right here, and I have the tools to do what I wish with it. If I leave this music free on the CD, it will eventually degrade, because CDs degrade. On the other hand, I can rip it onto my PC, using a lossless audio codec, and make plenty of backups everywhere. I take care of all the places I store it, and so it will naturally last siginifcantly longer than simply the CD. In fact, it would be a lot easier to handle, since I don't think there are many convenient portable media players that even accept CDs anymore. Are you saying that I cannot do that to the product that I bought?

Quote

I understand your economic views, and where as I may not agree I respect your opinions in such matters.  however here in Capitalist America well feel that any property or rights of property use should be upheld and it appears I am not alone, as the majority elected their trusted officials, and their trusted officials have made laws to reinforce my reasons.  Thus since the majority has not spoken out against the laws they still remain in effect.  Thus the majority has spoken (if only in their silence.)

But if we're going by majority, and companies are claiming a majority of people are pirating, then doesn't that mean that the majority is actually saying they want piracy? That they disagree with the current model, and advocate for this other, more convenient and more kind towards the consumer model instead?

[MiracleMouse]

Govna, on 03 November 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

The author lost no time, though.

Hmm, how to make this as simple as possible.  Bot for you, but so not to have to type out a novel to explain it.  First, note that I quit using the word author and since refer to "the parties involved with the production and distribution of the material."

Now that's said.  He could considered his time was lost by producing creative material in which was not accurately compensated for due to those who "may" have purchased the material as opposed to getting it for free.

Now I know every fiber of you is wanting to rebuttal "if the material was pirated there wasn't going to be a sell to begin with."  You have no basis for that argument so it pointless to say it.  As well I think its safer to assume at least one person out of potentially ten thousand downloads would have bought the album legally than none every would have.  But admittedly its an assumption, despite its merit and logic.

Quote

Are we also going to say that the people who bought the song, and then share it with their friends/neighbors/family are doing something illegal? They paid for the product.

According to the EULA, which is a legal binding agreement, that was agreed to by the one who purchased the creative work upon the day of purchase states, you do not have the right to reproduce and distribute their material.

So yes, its illegal in the US, of this there is no question.

Quote

I think he's saying that value is not some fixed, predertermined thing. That it is decided by the consumer, and if the consumer decides that he doesn't want to pay the author, then that is the consumer's decisions.

But this is untrue.  In capitalist America I can set the value of the worth of my time and you will either pay for it or go somewhere else.  The consumer can set the value at times, but so does the supplier.  

Quote

Except the fact that entertainment industries are claiming that piracy is a severe problem, and yet are showing record profits.

Irrelevant to my argument, as I specifically stated that I am not arguing what or how much of what but rather that something was lost, time could be lost, effort lost, personal thoughts lost (made public with no compensation), and all of these things have value.

Quote

No. The argument that, "there was a lost sale for piracy." is baseless.

Again, I said this already.  Both arguments have no base to stand on.  Although it is more logical to assume that out of the potential hundreds of thousands that at least one person would have bought the album otherwise, than it is to assume no one would have bought the album that torrented it.  

Do you disagree?

Quote

Why is downloading it illegal? You entered into no such contract with the originating party. You bought nothing. You paid for nothing.

It violates copyright laws.  

Quote

And if I bought this product, paid for it fully, how can you say I cannot use it however I wish?

Again, the EULA that you agreed to upon purchase of any material clearly defines what you can and cannot do with the material according to the copyright of that material.  This is enforced legally.  

Quote

But if we're going by majority, and companies are claiming a majority of people are pirating,

Source please.

Quote

then doesn't that mean that the majority is actually saying they want piracy? That they disagree with the current model, and advocate for this other, more convenient and more kind towards the consumer model instead?

In either case, they should force a vote by writing their congressman.  Sometimes not saying anything is implying the loudest vote.

But, To reinforce my argument I will do a poll.  You will see it, I will label the thread "The Piracy Poll And Argh!"

[MiracleMouse]

I would like to point out that I now have evidence that at least one person who has obtained a digital copy of a song for free would have bought the album otherwise.  Source here.

Thus lends credence that there has been cases where if piracy were not available the album would have been purchased through legal channels.  There by discrediting the argument that potential sales were not lost because there is no evidence to say the person who obtained the material for free would not have bought it otherwise.  

Well in a very recent study I conducted, it says otherwise.  Refer to the thread please.

[_Myst]

CosmicSpore, on 01 November 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Care to explain how it is 'wrong' when you don't consider it stealing?

Infringement of intellectual property rights. The owner has the right to dictate how their property is distributed, by copying data they own without their permission you are infringing on those rights.

Large scale pirating does translate into an amount of revenue lost, but it is not anywhere near 1 to 1.

[MiracleMouse]

_Myst, on 03 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Infringement of intellectual property rights. The owner has the right to dictate how their property is distributed, by copying data they own without their permission you are infringing on those rights.

Large scale pirating does translate into an amount of revenue lost, but it is not anywhere near 1 to 1.

I think by wrong he meant on a moral level as per the context.

[_Myst]

MiracleMouse, on 03 November 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

I think by wrong he meant on a moral level as per the context.

Moral level you say? How would you like it if someone copied your hard work without permission?


If you made your living off intellectual works and would be willing to give up any rights protecting those works, then you might have a leg to stand on in the argument piracy is not bad.

[MiracleMouse]

that depends on how much I made off of it to begin with I suppose.  I can comfortably say that if I made one million of a single album at that point I think I could care less.