People who pirate copyrighted material

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

Why don't you get a few million monkeys and you can win the nobel prize for literature.

It's also plain write

Good argument. I surrender. Run up the white flag and bend over Mary-Sue because I'ma coming home!



Getting a few million monkeys might be a little expensive. Chaining up someone in my basement and telling him to write songs a little illegal. Neither of those has absolutely anything to do with my point at all. My point was that a copyrighted song by your definition is little different from a patent. I don't know if you just didn't see that but if you want to carry on a normal conversation I would advise you to "sharpen up" or at least not bring childish comments along with you.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Jonny, your argument of 'it might happen randomly anyway!' holds no water.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Jonny, your argument of 'it might happen randomly anyway!' holds no water.

However it is precisely the same as his argument of the wheel being invented anyways. Necessity is a matter of perspective.

[blah]

I'm saying that's an unrealistic exception. Do you give shakspere credit for his work? What if someone wrote a computer program that made so many words that shaksperes works turned up somewhere in them. Would you give that person credit? of course they wouldn't be able find it since there would be so many other words around it. And of course if there are so many words that shaksperes works showed up in there than lots of other great new literay works should be in there aswell. Does that person get credit for them?
Songs and literary works are very individual. The time it would take for a individual song to be likely be made by someone is way to long to be realistic in our concepts of inventions and arts.

This might not make much sense but it does to me

[blah]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However it is precisely the same as his argument of the wheel being invented anyways. Necessity is a matter of perspective.

I never said it was invented anyways I said it would have been invented by now just at a latter time.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

I'm saying that's an unrealistic exception. Do you give shakspere credit for his work? What if someone wrote a computer program that made so many words that shaksperes works turned up somewhere in them. Would you give that person credit? of course they wouldn't be able find it since there would be so many other words around it. And of course if there are so many words that shaksperes works showed up in there than lots of other great new literay works should be in there aswell. Does that person get credit for them?
Songs and literary works are very individual. The time it would take for a individual song to be likely be made by someone is way to long to be realistic in our concepts of inventions and arts.

To be honest I give the exact same credit for an invention as I do for the creation of a literary piece of art. The fact that others might have to do it later as opposed to choose to do it later is really irrelevant. To be arguing purely on pragmatic grounds would render your original argument concerning the undeniable right of an artist to his creation a bit silly.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

I never said it was invented anyways I said it would have been invented by now just at a latter time.

Which is precisely the same as my argument except that mine would probably take a longer period of time to come to pass.

[blah]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

To be honest I give the exact same credit for an invention as I do for the creation of a literary piece of art. The fact that others might have to do it later as opposed to choose to do it later is really irrelevant. To be arguing purely on pragmatic grounds would render your original argument concerning the undeniable right of an artist to his creation a bit silly.

But the wheel would still exist and shakspers works wouldn't. Don't you agree that most signifigant inventions would have been created if their inventors didn't create them and just about all signifigant art works wouldn't exist today if their artist didn't create them? Isn't that a difference?

[blah]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Which is precisely the same as my argument except that mine would probably take a longer period of time to come to pass.

Well can you agree that the arts would take alot longer to make than the inventions? That's a difference

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Lord Talon

*Warning - this is long (sorry I lost the link otherwise I wouldn't have posted the whole thing). I found this on a message board a couple months ago and thought it was worth saving. The author makes some valid points, imo.


You Say that as a Joke, But... (Score:5, Informative)
by FreeUser (11483) on Tuesday August 19, @05:33PM (#6737908)
(http://jean.nu/)

So they are saying that communication is the reason for movie's failure? They should get rid of free speech.

You say that as a joke, but it is important to keep in mind that...

Here's a link to original slashdot comment.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

But the wheel would still exist and shakspers works wouldn't. Don't you agree that most signifigant inventions would have been created if there inventors didn't create them and just about all signifigant art works wouldn't exist today if there artist didn't create them? Isn't that a difference?

Of perspective sure. To be honest I'm not sure lacking the ability to change the past and view the resultant present. The number of what ifs that would result from major inventions taking longer to come to pass would be incredible. I would agree tentatively that a substantial percentage of ancient (modern inventions have come along very quickly and it's difficult to evaluate the maximum time it would take to come to pass) inventions would currenly exist, but probably not in their precise form known to us. Equally I believe a large percentage (probably less but can we really reduce morality to a matter of percentages and majorities?) of significant art works would exist in some form or other by now. Certainly there exists in science and technology major streams of thought from which inventors work, similarly there exists artistic modes and cultural ideas which most artists of a particular time period work from as a base. We should give individuals credit for the work they do.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by blah

Well can you agree that the arts would take alot longer to make than the inventions? That's a difference

That's a silly way to judge anything though. Your personal perspective leads you to believe that the inventions would come along inside an acceptable time period. However someone else could find this supposed interval too long to lend your idea any credence. Personal perspective cannot be a valid method for making moral judgements.

[blah]

Well now this discussion is getting to confusing for my brain. So I will just end my posts by saying I think the more critical someones actions are to something happening the more responsible they are for it happening. That's why I thought an artist is more responsoble for his or her art than an inventor is for their invetion.

[Lord Talon]

Originally Posted by blah

But the wheel would still exist and shakspers works wouldn't. Don't you agree that most signifigant inventions would have been created if there inventors didn't create them and just about all signifigant art works wouldn't exist today if there artist didn't create them? Isn't that a difference?

not necessarily. . .in your wheel argument vs South American indians - their society was functioned fairly well without it (not sure if it was Inca or Aztec or another -would have to read up again). A lot of inventions are driven by the "right" time/place/need. Inventions that don't satisfy that are often forgotten or ignored. Apparently there were ancient batteries fairly similar in function to what we now have for our flash lights, etc. At the time I think they were being used for shock therapy (it's been a while since I saw the program). Imagine where society would be if that tech had caught on and been developed 2000 years ago.

Art is also a matter of right time/place/need (- although need might be considered more of a spiritual need rather than a practical need). If Shakepeare's works hadn't fit those things, or if he had produced them in a society that did not value those things his works may also haved faded into obscurity.


Both serve a purpose to benefit humans in some way (and yes, I know benefit may not be the right word here in light of destructive inventions, hate literature, etc.)

[Lord Talon]

Originally Posted by Gayle29uk

Here's a link to original slashdot comment.

ty, Gayle

[MrL_JaKiri]

Genius lies in the ability to change the perspective of a people without them realising it, be it through art or through an invention so subtle 'anyone could have thought of it'.

In both cases, only one person did.

(Yes, there are exceptions to this. See: Differential calculus)

[Chaos]

I'm a pirate. I copy movies, games and music.

and my GF pirates music.

this infact has made us use more money on games and music than we did before we got our inet link.

I've used over 40000$ on computer games. many of those I've bought cuz I've gotten addicted to a great game/games series. and bought everything I could buy about it. but it started from a copied version.
and all warez groups encurages ppl to "buy it if you like it" to give our support to the creators of the product.
computer games isn't something you can buy then if you think the product sux you can return it. no. that's also why they use more money in gimics/looks/state of the art features(that most don't give a shit about. but only forces you to hafto upgrade your computer way before it's realy needed), and advertisements. yer. you can try demo's. but most of the time it doesn't give you a real image of the game. only a quick flash. like a movie trailer. they show you the good parts. and smash it together to make it look great. and then you see the whole movie. and it's nothing like the trailer at all. snoooore.

well. my point is. if I hadn't pirated. I wouldn't have used a lot of money on games. as it's hard to pick out the good games just from looking in the store. and the selection in the stores arn't realy great. only a handfull of games compared to how many has been released resently. I would end up paying for shitty games. getting annoyed cuz they sux. then think twize before I bought again.

the industry has become better. selection is better. and we got inet now so we can get demoes and reviews and previews.

but... before I got the inet link I've got now. when I was on dialup. I hardly ever pirated. as I was to old to go from friend to friend to copy warez. and leeching warez while on dialup isn't my idea of fun.
and I didn't use that much money on games. I replayed games over and over and over again. (kinda miss that also). BUT. the industry didn't get my money. Now I use lots more money on games. as I download a shitload of games all the time. I start playing a game. if it's sux after 15 min. I delete it. next!!.. and soo on. until I find a game that kicks ass =). then I play it. most of the time I don't pay for it. ever..
but many times I find great games that rock. and I hafto have it. all of it. with all the documentation. the extra stuff. I've got a great box collection of original games. most of them are games I just haf to have. and that I wanted the creators to keep making similar onces.

my point is. it doesn't mather why I pay. or what I doesn't pay for.
if I hadn't been pirating. they would have gotten even less money from me. and about music. hell I never bought music before. but now. I hear about some song, before I would just have ignored it. and forgotten about it (not realy big on music) but when I can just download it. I try it out. sometimes I think it rocks. I've actualy gone out and bought CD's now (never ever did that before, just listened to the radio before). yer ofc. I've burned a few music cd's. but that doesn't mather.. cuz if I hadn't pirated. I wouldn't have bought any CD's at all.

same for my GF. yer she bought CD's before. and she still does. but now she get's hooked on new guys. ppl she find the music for on inet. try it out. get's hooked on new music. something she would never just buy in a store. as why waste money if it sux. and asking to try out a shitload of CD's in the store isn't pratical. easier to just download at home. listen to it. it sux. ok delete. if it rocks. YAY.. hmm.. let's see it they got his cd in the store.

reasons for piracy is:

1. it's easier.
2. it's cheaper (cd's and atleast games cost to much)
3. bigger selection.
4. it's easier.

I know this to be a fact for most ppl that pirate.
pirating doesn't cut sales. it's boosted sales.
and if they want to make even MORE money.
then they should reduce the cost. and make it easier for ppl to get the product.

ppl like RIAA is evil plain and simple. they know they haven't lost any money. they are just greedy. when you start suing 12 year old girls, then something is wrong with you.


I'm a big fan of opensource. and I've even bougth several copies of Linux's (before I went over to FreeBSD)
everything I code I make available to the public (when it's finished that is)

music and coding or writing shouldn't be owned. it should be shared.
ofc ppl need to make a living. so let the companies pay for the product. they got the money. you should make things free to non profit ppl. but they wouldn't pay for the coding. they would pay for the support on the product and the manual and documentation.

and music. you should make it easly available to ppl. take money for CD in the store. for the package and for the trouble of putting it on a CD and distributing it. and make it availble for ppl in the inet. make them hafto pay a fee for use of the services.

same would work for computer games.

it would be cheaper and easier. piracy would be just about 0. and ppl like RIAA wouldn't hafto go and destroy the lives of 12 year old girls.

YES.. they would get less money. and YES quite a few ppl would loose their jobs. but an INSANLY amount of ppl would have a better life cuz of it. and then the quality of the games would perhaps improve also. cuz now only a handfull of all the games that are created are published. and most of those games are rushed way to early. and needs a million patches to be playable. Games creators would be able to sell their games without having to rely on a distibuter as they would only need to sell their games online.

you would get rid of a shitload of useless salesmen and closeminded accountents. and the money would go to the right ppl. the talents. nobody wants to fill the purse of a HUGE greedy company.
but supporting your favorite coder/artist/writer. is something ppl would gladly pay for.

bottomline is: I'm a pirate and proud of it. , they don't loose any money from me pirating. cuz either I wouldn't have bought their product to begin with. or 2. I bought their products BECAUSE I pirated it first.
this is a logic the accountents doesn't understand.
cuz in their closeminded world. if I've used the product. then I should have bought it. and since I didn't buy it. they've lost money.
if anything, they've gained money from my piracy.

(if something doesn't make sence. I'll blame it on that it's 4am here)

[W]

One simple reason why I don't respect copyright laws. I think they're wrong, both in the sense of being unjustified morally in that they do more harm than good, in the sense that they're unenforceable even in theory (without completely removing any privacy), and simply for going against what I think should be a basic human right; the freedom to do whatever you want with whatever information you have on your own media, be it your brain or your harddrive.

I also do not buy the hype. Pirating hurts noone. If you want to argue that someone is losing sales, you might as well argue that I hurt starving kids in africa since I don't send them my food. They're losing food since I don't send it to them, just like record companies is losing sales since I don't buy from them. And if you want to try to argue "but if piracy is legal noone will ever make music or software again!", feel free to try. I've previously detailed many ways in which innovators can still stay in buisness.

[Devilizer]

i dont care...

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you have a problem with this, feel free to stop making music/movies/etc. I'm not really bothered tbh. You can always perform live only, and search everyone who watches to stop them recording bootlegs.

you know, I am inclined to agree.

[G_frog]

To the best of my knowledge, Mozart didn't sell many CDs during his lifetime.

On a side note, if copyright went the way of the dodo right now - and this miraculously did stop all creative activity - I suspect many of us could live with what has already been done, distributed via sharing, for a few centuries at least.

hmm, i've just realised my sig is copyright violation, Dylan must be feeling the pinch right now.

[MrL_JaKiri]

You're buying the performance of the orchestra in that case.

Unless you're proposing that we somehow got a recording from 200 years ago onto cd.

[G_frog]

I was aiming to pre-empt any attempt to claim that music can't be made on/for the proceeds of performance alone.

admittedly mozart benefitted from the patronage of a royal court, so I should have chosen another example, but you get the idea.

[Deepflow]

i might have bought an album today if i could have downloaded the music... i was looking at a review of one and said "ooh i might buy that" then "oh, but it might be shit, if i had the internet here i could download a few of the tracks and check. I wont take the risk"

clearly other people must think like me! although probably slower.

P.S it was the new distillers one

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by G_frog

admittedly mozart benefitted from the patronage of a royal court, so I should have chosen another example, but you get the idea.

Well, as payment methods become easier to manage, and people's disposable incomes increase, I see no problem with the idea of "mass patronage" supporting artists in the future.

If it was the accepted business model, I'd happily give artists a few quid here and there to continue their output. Multiply that by several thousand fans and I see an viable career from being an independent music star.

The only problem is that it's quite difficult to have get started in current circumstances, primarily because of the near-gravitational affects that the large corporate/state media networks have. Once they've rotted away or been abolished, I'd imagine it'd be a lot easier.

[Vaio]

If the music industry bothered to promote talent and not the manufactured 'shit' they are, they might sell more CD's

Vaio

[Sturge]

Originally Posted by Obliterate

Not sure I understand you here - why wouldn't you "own" the song? After you've paid for it and downloaded it, I don't see why you can't burn it onto a CD etc... Basically the same as buying it from a shop - only easier and cheaper.

I either download a few songs then the album, or just buy the proper album. I hate getting copies of albums, since I like to get them fully packaged, etc

[Bloomers III]

Originally Posted by blah

It would not exist if it weren't for the creators and there is no other reason for it's existance except for the individuals who created it. That's true ownership

does that mean my parents have copyrighted me? BUT I WANT TO BE CLONED!

[wakey]

Imho the main cause of piracy is the Record labels and Film Studios themselves themselves.

In todays world the Film studios and are all too often looking for a way to make a quick buck. Just take a look at the movies released this year and its full of sequeal, remakes and spinoffs of Tv Shows/Games/Comics/Books ect. The market is just flooded with them and all too often they are of a very poor quality, either just another run of the mill dumb action movie or a rehash of the previous movie (or Both). Then we have the likes of Miramax who know people are going to flock to see Kill Bill as its a Quentin Tarantino movie so take the decision to split it into 2 movies stating that audiences cant sit through a 3 hour movie (Earth to miramax, the LOTR films are over 3 hours and are two of the biggest grossing films of the last two years with the ROTK likly to continue the trend this year. I think somehow that proves people can sitt through a movie for 3 hours)

We as Consumers arent stupid, and we arent generally going to go waste hard earned cash on another dumb movie that seems the same as thousands of others made before them. Yes we all like a bit of dumb action now and then but we also want originality and a good story and good acting that is thought provoking. If such things arent being offered its not suprising we dont part with our cash and instead sample it via an pirate copy first. And we certainly arent going to be eager to ahnd over our cash when its clear they are cashing in (Just look at the poor takings of sequals over the summer)

Also their marketing campaigns arent helpful. For weeks even months before we are bombarded with images of the film, either in teh form of specials or trailers. By the time its released you cant help but be getting annoyed with it and whats made even worse is that such trailers and specials are often very missleading. The recent remake of Solaries for example was marketed in the states as a sci fi movie to get people to go, yes its set in space but its really as far from a Sci Fi movie as you can get, its really a romance and everyone came out of teh movie thinking it was shit becuase it wasnt what they were expecting, this obviously starts a bad word of mouth cmapaign agaisnt the film and hits takings.

And this is before we even get to the home release market where most films make their profits. If you goto buy a DVD from a uk stockist the first thing you will probally notice is the fact the DVD contains numorous Subtitles and Audio tracks in languages like French,German, spanish, italian and normally a whole bunch of obscure languages. These take up space on the disc and its the extras that suffer. The same disc in the US generally has mnay more features on it and costs alot less so either we dont buy the film and just download it or we import it against the wishes of the studios (if we have a multi region player ofc). So once again we ahve teh studios ripping the consumers off and pushing them towards piracy. Then if thats not enough what do they do a year or so down the line, they release another version of the disc with more extras, differnt cuts of the movie ect and they do this with no warning whatsoever. At least New Line were honest about this with Lotr and consumers knew all along a better version would be on its way but many arent (T2 has about 4 differnt version, X-men has 2, Fast and Furious has 2 ect). This again makes consumers think "should i really buy this disc when chances are a better version will be out soon" and again pushes users to piracy.

And thats just the movies. The music industry is even worse.

Music has its own version of dumb action movies which it cashes in on and these are "Popstars for teenagers". These are the people who spend the most on CD's and are the people who can be exploited for profit most. Most of these people can be placed into one of three groups

Teenybopper girls
Teenybopper boys
Anti Teenyboppers

Each of the three groups can easierly be exploited for profit by the record companies. The easiest of which is Teenybopper girls.

The Boybands and Male Solo artists aimed at this market are all about image. It doesnt matter what they sing like or the music they produce, as long as they are good looking then the teenage girls will fall in love with them and buy whatever they can about them thus produce massive profits.

Teenybopper boys get their own version of these in girl groups and femal artists, who use their sex appeal to sell records.

Both of these groups however are not very tendy so you get the third group who claim to be anti manufacturered rubbish who need appealing to. So what does the record companies do, produce manufactuered rubbish thats appeals to the image of these lot. For example at the moment the skater/nu-metal music is seemingly trendy and theres loads of artists appearing in this mould. But its normally just all an act to sell records, Take avril lavigne for example who by all accounts was not anything like the image she tries to put across at school even though she claims its the way shes always been

Then we get the record companies trying to produce bands that appeal to both the teenyboppers and those who are agaisnt them with bands like Busted and blazing squad who try and use more trendy music styles and instruments (which the quite clearly arent playing) to make more money.

So while they are pushing all the money at such artists the rest of us are left with very little real music open to us. The bands are out there but we just dont get to find out about them. If we wnat to find out we really have to download the music and sample it first.

Downloading the music doesnt just help us find new artists to buy mind you but also lets us all see if the albums worth buying. All too often in the past Music cd's have been made up of 2 or 3 good tracks that could be made into singles with the rest just fillers. Paying upto £15 for an album where only 3 tracks are good is not that smart. I know I for one download my albums first check them out and if the cd has at least half the album i Like I will then go and buy it. if not I will stick to the mp3's of the tracks i like and maybe pick up the singles when/if they are released. If CD's were cheaper then perhaps id be less picky but as it is I have to be more careful with my money and only buy albums that are really worth buying.

Then when mainstream acts do produce a good song by the time its released as a single which we might buy we are usually sick of it. Why, because for the month before release ist been played none stop on the radio, music tv channels and even normal tv channels. Its got to the stage where its annoying.

And now we have the music indutries latest idea, copy protection. You buy a CD place it in your PC and it wont play. Ok stops piracy but what happens your computer is the only cd player you have, your not going to be able to play it and will take it back to the shop. To get around this they have started to put a CD player on the disc that will play the files on a computer, only problem here is they arent the high quality CD recordinsg you expected but low quality WMA files that at best sound like FM radio making the quality no better than a cassette version.And even if you find this acceptable as you ahve other CD players guess what they might not even play in your cd player. And what happens I want to take the tracks out with me but dont want to carry a bulky cd player but instead a small iPod or other simerlar mp3 player. You cant do that as the cd cant be ripped. So how is this really going to increase sales, all it does is make you put the cd back on the shelf and wait for someone to crack the protection and release it for download.


If these groups werent so quick to use piracy as a scapegoat for their falling sales and spent some time to address the real issue instead of sueing 12 year olds then not only would their sales be higher as the products might be worth buying again but also piracy would most likly be less of an issue as they wouldnt be psuhing people into doing it. Yes piracy would still happen, it will never go away as some people will always refuse to pay for thinsg if they can get them free but it would be less of a problem


[edit] Woops went on a bit of a rant there, didnt realise how much I wrote [/edit]

[Deffeh]

I feel this is an ironically funny place to ask; anyone know where i could achieve a way around the "you have 28 days to activate windows" thing, from a windows xp home reinstallation cd.

PM, naturally ()

[MrL_JaKiri]

Have Windows XP Pro Corporate instead.