How does CAG feel about Pirating?

[quote name='Access_Denied']Right, so how do those two situations affect the creator? In one situation, the user reads the book in the store, leaves the book, and the book remains unsold. (Which, I might add, is only a potential loss to the store, not the creator.) And in the other situation, the user downloads the book, and a copy of the book still remains unsold, not affecting the creator.[/QUOTE]

With regards to the author's rights, he has at least a theoretical choice to sell his book in a bookstore, and knows by doing so that he assumes the rather minimal risk that someone will spend 20 hours a week in Barnes and Noble reading books without being kicked out. Moreover, even if that happens, the author is indemnified. He cannot, however, avoid having his work pirated unless he simply doesn't publish it. And even that might not work.

Or, if you want a strictly economic answer, the aggregate impact of piracy on sales probably exceeds that of unemployed weirdos trolling B&N for the latest John Grisham.

[quote name='Access_Denied']And why is it that just because something is illegal, it's wrong to do?[/QUOTE]

It isn't.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's really just a pointless debate as it just comes down to morals.

You either feel content creators should be rewarded for there work and you buy it and don't make copies for friends etc.

Or you don't give a shit and are a me, me, me type of person and only care about enjoying stuff without having to pay for it.

Or your some commie nut job that thinks artists should just create for the good of society and progression of the arts rather than trying to make money off their work etc. Which usually boils down to jealousy over people getting paid doing something they love when you're stuck in some crummy job you hate as you lack creative talent etc.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because you're either right or you're wrong. Or crazy if you think differently. :roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's really just a pointless debate as it just comes down to morals.

You either feel content creators should be rewarded for there work and you buy it and don't make copies for friends etc.

Or you don't give a shit and are a me, me, me type of person and only care about enjoying stuff without having to pay for it.

Or your some commie nut job that thinks artists should just create for the good of society and progression of the arts rather than trying to make money off their work etc. Which usually boils down to jealousy over people getting paid doing something they love when you're stuck in some crummy job you hate as you lack creative talent etc.[/QUOTE]

Keep up the good work. If you keep insulting us, and telling us we have no morals, we might realize the error of our ways. :roll:
 
Hey, I have no respect at all for people who pirate stuff.

People who have no qualms about taking something someone has created and decided to sell without paying for it aren't worth a damn IMO. I've ended real life friendships/acquaintances over it, so I'm not going to pull punishes in bashing random losers online for doing it.

And it's really a simple moral issue. You're either all about yourself and maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain and thus have no qualms illegally downloading stuff, getting a burned cd from a friend etc. Or you can put your bottom line aside and reward content creators for entertaining you and purchase their creations or do without owning a copy of them.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Keep up the good work. If you keep insulting us, and telling us we have no morals, we might realize the error of our ways. :roll:[/QUOTE]
didn't i have a conversation with you about illegals being freeloading leeches?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's really just a pointless debate as it just comes down to morals.

You either feel content creators should be rewarded for there work and you buy it and don't make copies for friends etc.

Or you don't give a shit and are a me, me, me type of person and only care about enjoying stuff without having to pay for it.

Or your some commie nut job that thinks artists should just create for the good of society and progression of the arts rather than trying to make money off their work etc. Which usually boils down to jealousy over people getting paid doing something they love when you're stuck in some crummy job you hate as you lack creative talent etc.[/QUOTE]

Holy Shit i never thought of it like that before you mean that many of the classic rock artists from the 60's & 70's only wrote music for money !!! damn and i thought all these years they published their work to send a message and express their creative arts and political views. Guess the term bohemian artist is actually code for a commie who does the arts because society told him to not cause he loves it.

You preach alot about morals , just out of curiosity what's you standing on S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) i am assuming that you support it and endorse it since it's was introduced by the media company as a way to block users from site like pirate bay and other popular torrent sites not to mention any other sites online that the government feels Americans shouldn't view , cause that's not some worse morals there.

You want to call into debate the morals of a pirate ??? I don't see how you can judge a persons morals by if they download or not. I guess since I download a song here or there then that means I am also the same lose moral bastard selling crack to preschoolers and running over little old lady's.

Morals make up a person by the deeds they do for the benefit of all of humanity not by how they get to watch movies or play games. Next time your broke down on the side of the road and someone stops to ask if you need help ask them if there a pirate if they are, tell them about there morals and see how fast your stuck waiting for the next person to help you.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's really just a pointless debate as it just comes down to morals.

You either feel content creators should be rewarded for there work and you buy it and don't make copies for friends etc.

Or you don't give a shit and are a me, me, me type of person and only care about enjoying stuff without having to pay for it.

Or your some commie nut job that thinks artists should just create for the good of society and progression of the arts rather than trying to make money off their work etc. Which usually boils down to jealousy over people getting paid doing something they love when you're stuck in some crummy job you hate as you lack creative talent etc.[/QUOTE]

Keep up the good work. If you keep insulting us, and telling us we have no morals, we might realize the error of our ways. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Well, he's right about one thing. It really is pointless if you're replying to someone who is as close minded as him and can only think in black and white. :roll:
 
[quote name='Kaelestis']Well, he's right about one thing. It really is pointless if you're replying to someone who is as close minded as him and can only think in black and white. :roll:[/QUOTE]

The Mind Is Like A Parachute, It Only Works When It's Open
 
[quote name='shosh']didn't i have a conversation with you about illegals being freeloading leeches?[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. I don't hate illegals. I'm just biased because my home town is overrun with them, and as I may have mentioned, they've done nothing to make our schools any better. :roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's really just a pointless debate as it just comes down to morals.

You either feel content creators should be rewarded for there work and you buy it and don't make copies for friends etc.

Or you don't give a shit and are a me, me, me type of person and only care about enjoying stuff without having to pay for it.

Or your some commie nut job that thinks artists should just create for the good of society and progression of the arts rather than trying to make money off their work etc. Which usually boils down to jealousy over people getting paid doing something they love when you're stuck in some crummy job you hate as you lack creative talent etc.[/QUOTE]


My problem (along with many others) is that you're saying either we're angels who pay for everything, or we're criminals who rape and pillage and kill children and download music and movies.

I can bet that a good handful of people who do support file-sharing are morally decent people. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I refuse to use drugs, I don't disrespect elders, but if I want to check out an older Bava flick, the internet might be my last ditch effort. If I had more money, I'd spend every extra penny on movies and music and games. I've amassed a decent collection for the little bit of money I've made in my life so far, and it's not like I've sold every DVD I have to go out and buy two 2 TB externals so I can fill them up with everything I'll ever need again.

You will find the people out there who take and take and take and have no remorse about it, and refuse to buy movies ever again, but that's a small portion. There's a broad range of people who like to find a movie, watch it, and if they enjoy it, go out and buy it and show it off to friends.


It's not as black and white as you make it.
 
[quote name='Kaelestis']Well, he's right about one thing. It really is pointless if you're replying to someone who is as close minded as him and can only think in black and white. :roll:[/QUOTE]

/thread
 
We're all never going to agree on this and no one is going to change their mind. Some people have no problems with forcefully taking what they want, regardless of the law or the wishes of those they're taking it from. That will never change.

But - riddle me this. As easy as it is to illegally download music... why the heck do people still shoplift CDs? Seriously?
 
Shoplifting is as much about the thrill of 'getting away with it' as it is the actual item.

And I say if you're inclined to pirate, only pirate porn.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Shoplifting is as much about the thrill of 'getting away with it' as it is the actual item.

And I say if you're inclined to pirate, only pirate porn.[/QUOTE]
hows the porn industry gonna pay for the boob jobs, coke parties and hiv tests?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']We're all never going to agree on this and no one is going to change their mind. Some people have no problems with forcefully taking what they want, regardless of the law or the wishes of those they're taking it from. That will never change.

But - riddle me this. As easy as it is to illegally download music... why the heck do people still shoplift CDs? Seriously?[/QUOTE]

Riddle me that, whose afraid of the black and white giraffe. But seriously why do people commit acts of tax fraud (yes even small ones can potentially land you in the federal pound you in the a** prison) instead of stealing cd's. One is like a fine, the other can lead to a felony and federal incarceration, yet every year more affluent people will commit the former while still maintaining a moral high ground against "serious criminals".

Why did I censor my own sentence?
 
Are pirates lazy? I think someone (dmaul?) made that claim earlier in the thread.

I'm not convinced they are, as they have to both understand the technology they're using, minimize the risks (though the likelihood of getting caught is unbearably low, the risks are of a different kind, e.g. getting something that works, not catching a virus or malware, etc.).

Additionally, pirates have to adapt to changes in the environment; they responded to Napster shutting down, they have to deal with networks that can identify (and close of access to) actively shared torrent files - and there are surely other examples of the aggravations of piracy I can't think of (properly burning software onto disc such that it is workable, perhaps?).

Add in looking in the right places, knowing the proper search terminology, identifying trusted hacker networks, etc.

I'd say it's lazy in that's it's physically passive behavior, but part of piracy is the "thrill" of it as hostyl just mentioned about physical larceny. Maybe it's not the thrill of the actual crime, but, rather, the thrill of properly and accurately tinkering with your console to play burned games, or getting emulated software to run properly on your system.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I can't help but think of piracy as a complex activity to get into in that there's a steep learning curve involved.
 
[quote name='bubbafett4hire']Holy Shit i never thought of it like that before you mean that many of the classic rock artists from the 60's & 70's only wrote music for money !!! damn and i thought all these years they published their work to send a message and express their creative arts and political views. Guess the term bohemian artist is actually code for a commie who does the arts because society told him to not cause he loves it.
[/quote]

Again, no one is forced to decide to sell their art. Anyone can give it away for free rather than signing a record deal and trying to sell their music.

Those that choose to sale their art should have their product protected, and no one should think it's ok to possess a copy of it that you didn't obtain through legitimate means.

You preach alot about morals , just out of curiosity what's you standing on S. 3804: Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) i am assuming that you support it and endorse it since it's was introduced by the media company as a way to block users from site like pirate bay and other popular torrent sites not to mention any other sites online that the government feels Americans shouldn't view , cause that's not some worse morals there.
Click to expand...

I'm not big on blocking access to sites. Piracy should be criminalized, and then they could just shut down sites, arrest the owners and seize the servers etc. from sites that are hitting felony levels in illegal uploads and downloads.

Just have small fines and misdemeanors for lesser offenders, downloaders etc.

You want to call into debate the morals of a pirate ??? I don't see how you can judge a persons morals by if they download or not. I guess since I download a song here or there then that means I am also the same lose moral bastard selling crack to preschoolers and running over little old lady's.
Click to expand...

[quote name='Vulgarism']My problem (along with many others) is that you're saying either we're angels who pay for everything, or we're criminals who rape and pillage and kill children and download music and movies.
[/QUOTE]


I've absolutely not said that. I've said piracy is an immoral act. I've not said it means someone has no morals.

In the grand scheme, piracy is a relatively minor moral wrong. Same as shoplifting something of little value. But it is a moral wrong none the less.

You possess a copy of something for sale--that somone decided to sell instead of giving it away--without obtaining it through a purchase or a legitimate method of borrowing.

Pirates aren't evil, but they're at the least self focused people who care more about getting what they want, than compensating those who create art they enjoy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are pirates lazy? I think someone (dmaul?) made that claim earlier in the thread.

I'm not convinced they are, as they have to both understand the technology they're using, minimize the risks (though the likelihood of getting caught is unbearably low, the risks are of a different kind, e.g. getting something that works, not catching a virus or malware, etc.).

Additionally, pirates have to adapt to changes in the environment; they responded to Napster shutting down, they have to deal with networks that can identify (and close of access to) actively shared torrent files - and there are surely other examples of the aggravations of piracy I can't think of (properly burning software onto disc such that it is workable, perhaps?).

Add in looking in the right places, knowing the proper search terminology, identifying trusted hacker networks, etc.

I'd say it's lazy in that's it's physically passive behavior, but part of piracy is the "thrill" of it as hostyl just mentioned about physical larceny. Maybe it's not the thrill of the actual crime, but, rather, the thrill of properly and accurately tinkering with your console to play burned games, or getting emulated software to run properly on your system.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I can't help but think of piracy as a complex activity to get into in that there's a steep learning curve involved.[/QUOTE]


But is there that much of learning curve for the younger generation that have been stuck on computers and the internet pretty much their whole life?

My post was mainly about movies. Movie piracy just doesn't make a ton of sense in the age of being able to watch as many moves/shows as you have time for in a month for $9 and tax from Netflix with disc rentals and streaming, or with $1 Redbox rentals etc.

Games I can see as they're much pricier and rental options aren't as cheap or efficient. Music I can see as their aren't rental options, online streaming is at the mercy of what comes up in the play list etc.

Movies just make little sense to pirate beyond being lazy or just an uber cheap ass that can't cough up $9 a change a month for netflix or a buck for the occasional Redbox rental.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But is there that much of learning curve for the younger generation that have been stuck on computers and the internet pretty much their whole life?

My post was mainly about movies. Movie piracy just doesn't make a ton of sense in the age of being able to watch as many moves/shows as you have time for in a month for $9 and tax from Netflix with disc rentals and streaming, or with $1 Redbox rentals etc.

Games I can see as they're much pricier and rental options aren't as cheap or efficient. Music I can see as their aren't rental options, online streaming is at the mercy of what comes up in the play list etc.

Movies just make little sense to pirate beyond being lazy or just an uber cheap ass that can't cough up $9 a change a month for netflix or a buck for the occasional Redbox rental.[/QUOTE]

I still have an issue with what you're calling 'laz[iness]', though. It doesn't strike me as lazy. If talking strictly about movies, it's comparing two forms of rather easy activities (piracy v netflix). There are two fundamental differences though:
1) selection on Netflix is limited, yet unlimited for pirate networks: so instant gratification w/ low self-control will drive someone towards piracy. You can download Iron Man 2 rather quickly, yet it's not on Netflix streaming (meaning you'd have to wait for a disc in the mail).
2) cost: $9+/month versus free (keeping the inherent limitations of the paid-for option in mind).

That's what I think the rationale is (assuming at least one fundamental rationale most pirates can agree on). Essentially, it boils down to "why pay $9 for Netflix, when I can get better selection and faster access via piracy?" It's something (rational choice), but I still fail to see where laziness comes into play.

It's selfish, it's rooted in instant gratification, it's criminal. But I still don't think it's lazy.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Unless you don't have internet.[/QUOTE]

True. But pretty moot since the major piracy problem--at least in the US--is illegal downloads.

Very fair point in say Hong Kong etc. where it's bootleg dvds etc. are everywhere. They exist in the US, but you don't stumble across places selling them very often.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
It's selfish, it's rooted in instant gratification, it's criminal. But I still don't think it's lazy.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, I can agree with that. And I'd add cheapness to it as well. It's selfish, cheap and criminal.

Not surprising it so rampant among users here given that it's a population of mostly younger, tech savvy cheapskates who hate to spend money on anything! :D

Laziness is probably moot. I was thinking back to my college days (when Napster first started) where some people's excuses for downloading albums were being too lazy to go to the store and by the CD--but you're right that even that was probably more instant gratification than laziness despite their claims.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd say it's lazy in that's it's physically passive behavior, but part of piracy is the "thrill" of it as hostyl just mentioned about physical larceny. Maybe it's not the thrill of the actual crime, but, rather, the thrill of properly and accurately tinkering with your console to play burned games, or getting emulated software to run properly on your system.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. If I tried to tell you that it wasn't incredibly fun being a pirate, I'd be lying. Modding 360's, programming for the PS3, circumventing DVD copy protection, watching movies before they come out in theatres and just plain sticking it to the man. It's all just so much fun. But then again, I'm a nerd, so maybe I'm alone. :lol:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Movies just make little sense to pirate beyond being lazy or just an uber cheap ass that can't cough up $9 a change a month for netflix or a buck for the occasional Redbox rental.[/QUOTE]

Legit:

"Hey guys, what do you want to do?"
"I don't know, wanna watch a movie?"
"Sure, how about Iron Man 2?"
"Sounds great, I haven't seen it yet. Do you have it?"
"No, and they're sold out at Redbox, I already checked."
"Anybody have Netflix? Add it to your queue."
"OK, it's added, but we have to wait 7 to 10 days."
"OK, well, I'll let you guys know when it comes, and we'll have movie night."

Pirate:

"Hey guys, wanna watch a movie?"
"Yeah sure. I've been dying to see Iron Man 2. Do you have it?"
"Nope, but I will in 20 minutes."
*2 hours later*
"Sweet movie dude. We'll have to do this again sometime."
"ANY time is good for me. ;)"
 
Heard of pay per view? Or going to a video store? That's what ppl did back in the old days.

So for anyone who pirates, should we just legalize it and let people decide if they want to pay? Like in china?
 
I see very little reason to respect copyright laws as they no longer serve the public good.

Copyright exists for a reason, and should continue to exist. People deserve to be fiscally compensated for their efforts of creation; however, rights to works and limitations on fair use have become draconian and excessively restrictive. Corporations lobby to increase copyright durations far beyond the original strictures and reduce methods of fair use. These new laws have established an artificial scarcity to draw more money from consumers and to corporations.

Copyright should function more like patent law. The originator of the work has a window within which to profit, (a suitably large window, such as the original twenty-five years) and then the works become public domain, to the benefit of all mankind. Hell, the copyright clause is clear on this point: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (emphasis mine)

Here's an example of the complexity involved in determining public domain: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm It's ridiculous. The system needs dramatic reform and overhaul.

However infringing recent works because it's cheaper, because you "wouldn't pay for it anyway" is morally reprehensible.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Legit:

"Hey guys, what do you want to do?"
"I don't know, wanna watch a movie?"
"Sure, how about Iron Man 2?"
"Sounds great, I haven't seen it yet. Do you have it?"
"No, and they're sold out at Redbox, I already checked."
"Anybody have Netflix? Add it to your queue."
"OK, it's added, but we have to wait 7 to 10 days."
"OK, well, I'll let you guys know when it comes, and we'll have movie night."

Pirate:

"Hey guys, wanna watch a movie?"
"Yeah sure. I've been dying to see Iron Man 2. Do you have it?"
"Nope, but I will in 20 minutes."
*2 hours later*
"Sweet movie dude. We'll have to do this again sometime."
"ANY time is good for me. ;)"[/QUOTE]


Again, that's just why I think you and your ilk are pretty worthless. You care more about instant gratification than rewarding people for creating things that entertain you buy buying them or at the least renting them.




[quote name='Quillion']I see very little reason to respect copyright laws as they no longer serve the public good.

Copyright exists for a reason, and should continue to exist. People deserve to be fiscally compensated for their efforts of creation; however, rights to works and limitations on fair use have become draconian and excessively restrictive. Corporations lobby to increase copyright durations far beyond the original strictures and reduce methods of fair use. These new laws have established an artificial scarcity to draw more money from consumers and to corporations.
[/quote]

Agree. Fair use laws MUST be vastly clarified and expanded. But I don't think the current state justifies piracy. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Copyright should function more like patent law. The originator of the work has a window within which to profit, (a suitably large window, such as the original twenty-five years) and then the works become public domain, to the benefit of all mankind. Hell, the copyright clause is clear on this point: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

I think it should last at least until death of the creator. I don't like the idea of someone seeing there creation (that they choose to sell rather than give away) enter the public domain during their lifetimes.

Maybe there could be stipulations that things enter the public domain quicker if they go out of print for X number of years, or sells drop below a certain level etc. since the person is making nothing off those anyway. But no reason somone who writes a classic book that sells throughout there lifetime should suddenly stop making money on those sales after 25 years etc. if they're still alive IMO.

However infringing recent works because it's cheaper, because you "wouldn't pay for it anyway" is morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though again I don't think offering other justifications such as "corporations are evil" or "copyright laws are draconian" etc. are defensible either. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

If you want to change copyright laws, write your elected officials, start a movement for expanding fair use etc.

By pirating, all you're doing is giving the corporations more ammunition to use in lobbying for draconian DRM schemes, copyright laws etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agree. Fair use laws MUST be vastly clarified and expanded. But I don't think the current state justifies piracy. Two wrongs don't make a right.[/Quote]Agreed
I think it should last at least until death of the creator. I don't like the idea of someone seeing there creation (that they choose to sell rather than give away) enter the public domain during their lifetimes.
Click to expand...
Disagree. While it may be a kick in the nuts to see your beloved characters entering public domain, twenty-five years is plenty of time to profit.
Maybe there could be stipulations that things enter the public domain quicker if they go out of print for X number of years, or sells drop below a certain level etc. since the person is making nothing off those anyway. But no reason somone who writes a classic book that sells throughout there lifetime should suddenly stop making money on those sales after 25 years etc. if they're still alive IMO.
Click to expand...
More complexity would be bad. Simply give creators a window within which to profit. Would people stop writing songs or novels if someday, two and a half decades down the line, someone else could profit? Should "Star Wars" have more legal protection than a cure for cancer?
Agreed, though again I don't think offering other justifications such as "corporations are evil" or "copyright laws are draconian" etc. are defensible either. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

If you want to change copyright laws, write your elected officials, start a movement for expanding fair use etc.

By pirating, all you're doing is giving the corporations more ammunition to use in lobbying for draconian DRM schemes, copyright laws etc.
Click to expand...
Corporations need no ammunition to lobby for draconian DRM, Disney isn't lobbying for copyright because they want to keep you from downloading "The Princess and the Frog." It's that they don't want Mickey to be public domain. Even though he should be.

If the purpose of copyright is to spur innovation, enrich the culture, and allow innovators to profit, it needs a limited term. All goals are better satisfied by a twenty-five year window. I postulate that a twenty-five year window would spur more innovation. Without endless profits to be made from the "Star Wars" universe, Lucas (unarguably a great fiction innovator) may have been forced to create something new, instead of mining his material with prequels. Creators would have to keep creating to keep profiting.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Disagree. While it may be a kick in the nuts to see your beloved characters entering public domain, twenty-five years is plenty of time to profit.More complexity would be bad. Simply give creators a window within which to profit. Would people stop writing songs or novels if someday, two and a half decades down the line, someone else could profit? Should "Star Wars" have more legal protection than a cure for cancer?
[/quote]

Drugs and other things need to enter the public domain as they have an impact on public health. Art and entertainment don't have that impact so I support life time copyrights there. And no I don't think people would stop writing etc., but as you note it's a kick in the nuts that I don't think artists should endure. So we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

And honestly, things like characters entering the public domain I don't think is good for development of the arts.

It can stifle creativity if people can cash in by using a famous character like Mickey Mouse or the Star Wars world etc. rather than having to invent their own characters and worlds.

Material should enter the public domain so people can freely access it, but I'm not big on that meaning that anyone can use other's characters etc.

Leads to no-talent hacks doing rip off crap like that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book. Don't have the talent to write an original Zombie book that will sell, so cash in by just editing a public domain classic. Lame IMO.

People should be able to freely acquire and read material after the copyright is dead, but not to sell it as their own in bastardized versions etc. IMO.


Corporations need no ammunition to lobby for draconian DRM, Disney isn't lobbying for copyright because they want to keep you from downloading "The Princess and the Frog." It's that they don't want Mickey to be public domain. Even though he should be.
Click to expand...

That's just one example. Plenty point to piracy for reasons for putting DRM on their e-books etc. So pirating just gives more fuel for the fire for them to show how piracy hurts them and why they have to protect their digital products at all costs, and continue trying to undermine fair use laws.
 
I don't know about the novel, but the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies graphic novel was great. Nothing wrong with putting a new twist on something.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't know about the novel, but the Pride and Prejudice and Zombies graphic novel was great. Nothing wrong with putting a new twist on something.[/QUOTE]

To be clear I'm not opposed to it totally.

I just have less respect for someone putting a twist on something vs. someone who can create something totally new.

It's just a marketing ploy. A generic Zombie story set in that era is a hard sell. Make it an adaptation of a classic book, and all of a sudden you get a ton of free press as that generates publicity/controversy.

It's creative marketing, but I'm not a fan of those kind of rip offs personally. But I don't think they should be banned as stuff does go to the public domain. Was just using it as an example that stuff going to the public domain doesn't necessarily advance the arts/creativity.

Much easier for people make and sell a bunch of crappy Mickey Mouse cartoons if the character goes public domain, than to successfully create their own character etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But is there that much of learning curve for the younger generation that have been stuck on computers and the internet pretty much their whole life?

My post was mainly about movies. Movie piracy just doesn't make a ton of sense in the age of being able to watch as many moves/shows as you have time for in a month for $9 and tax from Netflix with disc rentals and streaming, or with $1 Redbox rentals etc.

Games I can see as they're much pricier and rental options aren't as cheap or efficient. Music I can see as their aren't rental options, online streaming is at the mercy of what comes up in the play list etc.

Movies just make little sense to pirate beyond being lazy or just an uber cheap ass that can't cough up $9 a change a month for netflix or a buck for the occasional Redbox rental.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on the movies, I would also add games. Talk about bang for your buck.

The worst players in this whole mess have been the music companies. While I disagree with what music pirates are doing, it's as much the fault of the luddite music companies as it is the pirates.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Much easier for people make and sell a bunch of crappy Mickey Mouse cartoons if the character goes public domain, than to successfully create their own character etc.[/QUOTE]

Remember that Disney made many, many classic movies out of public domain materials. Not everything is a hack-job like P&P&Z.
 
[quote name='camoor']I agree with you on the movies, I would also add games. Talk about bang for your buck.

The worst players in this whole mess have been the music companies. While I disagree with what music pirates are doing, it's as much the fault of the luddite music companies as it is the pirates.[/QUOTE]

Agree, kind of. I don't really see how the music companies are so bad beyond the absurd RIAA law suits.

Music is DRM free now. While it's a crime to crack the DRM to rip or copy a DVD or Blu Ray. Same with making copies of games. Ebooks mostly all have DRM except for some smaller publishers. And worse the DRM is device specific meaning you can't read a DRMd Nook book on your Kindle and vice versa etc.

And prices are pretty much the same as ever. I've been buying CDs since the early 1990 (92 or 93) and I've always paid $10-15 an album for new releases. MP3 albums go for $10 generally. Even $1 a song seems fair to me if it's a song you'll listen to countless times over the rest of your life (I'm still listening to the first albums I bought back in the early 90s) etc.

So I don't get the ire for the music industry.


[quote name='camoor']Remember that Disney made many, many classic movies out of public domain materials. Not everything is a hack-job like P&P&Z.[/QUOTE]

For sure, which is why I wouldn't ban characters going public domain etc. even though I don't much like it.

Just pointing out public domain doesn't necessarily equal creativity. It's much more creative to make your own characters and stories than to adapt old ones.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, that's just why I think you and your ilk are pretty worthless. You care more about instant gratification than rewarding people for creating things that entertain you buy buying them or at the least renting them.[/QUOTE]


Worthless? :lol: Right, we pirate, so we're worthless. We've never ever contributed anything positive to the world. Pirates just sit in their basement masturbating and downloading things illegally. It's not like we contribute to society. None of us actually have jobs. And none of us actually make our own art, like video games or music. No no no. That's impossible. :roll: How could somebody like me possibly work in game development and still pirate games? It's nonsense I tell you. And all of us are on welfare too. None of us have ever paid for a single thing in our life. It's all free.

I'm glad you can figure us out so well. Good thing the world is 100% black and white. I don't know what I'd do if there were gray areas. There's good people and bad people. Nothing else. If you've ever broken a law your entire life, you're bad, otherwise, you're good. Guess I'll just have to settle for being the poor excuse for a human being that I'm doomed to be.

I need to take the advice given earlier, and just quit this thread. You may continue judging people and de-friending pirates, while I go play the new Rock Band 3 songs I just downloaded. Good day.
 
You're going to far with my comment again. I just have zero respect for selfish people, and piracy is an inherently selfish act. So such people are pretty worthless to me as I'm not going to give them the time of day to give a shit what other good they do in their lives.

Not saying pirates are at the bottom of the barrel with child molesters and muderers or any of the shit you pirate losers keep inferring.

Anyway, done with you, ignore +1.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Isn't buying used games a selfish act?

Did I just destroy this thread?[/QUOTE]

To some degree, yes. I try to buy new (and at full price at launch) when it's a game/developer I really want to support. But I'll use goozex etc. for other games. It does hurt publishers and developers, but it's covered by fair use laws, first sale doctrine etc. so there's nothing morally wrong with buying used games, movies, cds, books etc.

Also, the used market isn't near the threat to these industries that piracy is. A person can only have 1 legit (non-bootleg) copy of a game/movies/album/book at a time. A person can only sell or trade their game to one person, who can then pass it on to one person etc.

A pirate can upload an illegal copy that can then spread to an unlimited number of people who all possess it at the same time. One illegal upload can cost a lot more sells than someone deciding to ship out a game on Goozex or trade it in to Gamestop etc.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Isn't buying used games a selfish act?

Did I just destroy this thread?[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting point. I don't care for Activision as a publisher, so when I do buy their games, I only buy them used - the point being that I want to play some of their games, but I don't want to support them financially.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fair enough, I can agree with that. And I'd add cheapness to it as well. It's selfish, cheap and criminal.

Not surprising it so rampant among users here given that it's a population of mostly younger, tech savvy cheapskates who happen to be the same group credited with electing Obama to office.
[/QUOTE]

Fixed. Since this is the political forum, and all. ;)

On a more serious note, I see here, and often see, the claims that artists should create for the joy of creating, etc., etc... instead of doing it for the money. That's all well and good - and here's the thing... there is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. We have the internet now - people can freely create and upload games, videos, music, stories for anyone to enjoy as much as they want at no cost. I'm sure we've all enjoyed the works of some of these artists who created, say, some flash games on Newgrounds... or even something even more professional like Dr. Horrible.

However, if someone chooses to go that route, that is a decision that that individual has made. Not everyone has made that decision. If you want to enjoy the stuff that is released for profit, then you should abide by the law and pay when necessary. If you want free stuff, then enjoy the free stuff. Some of it's pretty awesome.
 
Damn some of you guys really stand on principle. I buy used games when they're cheap and decent quality.

[quote name='UncleBob']Fixed. Since this is the political forum, and all. ;)[/QUOTE]

That's probably true. I wonder how many of THEM (them including me) know how vigorous Joe Biden has been in fighting pirates (i.e. THEM.)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To some degree, yes. I try to buy new (and at full price at launch) when it's a game/developer I really want to support. But I'll use goozex etc. for other games. It does hurt publishers and developers, but it's covered by fair use laws, first sale doctrine etc. so there's nothing morally wrong with buying used games, movies, cds, books etc.

Also, the used market isn't near the threat to these industries that piracy is. A person can only have 1 legit (non-bootleg) copy of a game/movies/album/book at a time. A person can only sell or trade their game to one person, who can then pass it on to one person etc.

A pirate can upload an illegal copy that can then spread to an unlimited number of people who all possess it at the same time. One illegal upload can cost a lot more sells than someone deciding to ship out a game on Goozex or trade it in to Gamestop etc.[/QUOTE]

The used market is just as much of a threat as piracy is , pre-Amazon mom and pop owned books store were the only place one could pick a up a book or have one ordered and many books un-popular to main stream christens needed to be ordered new as there wasn't a market for used outside your local swap meet. Now I can rip off any publishers by buying a used book from amazon for %75 lower then the marked price new sure it was paid for once but now that $80 book will have money made on 10x over and the publisher only saw profits from it once but yet people who paid less for it could be paid more.

Gamestop and even CAG is an example of this compared to years ago pre-internet. This year when madden 11 came out I knew like all games it'd only be a matter of time before I could grab it used some where else like gamestop or another game trading site , pay less money then new and still turn a profit on it later when someone else wanted it. That one game exchanged hands 5 times had a total of over $200 exchanges over it's time and the publisher only saw $60 once.

How much does a company lose on a game being downloaded is what i want to know and how can you even do the math on it. Are we talking retail price but on what? A console game costs about $60 x 500 people who downloaded it $50,000 but what about it's PC cousin. Digital downloads cost a fraction of a disc price so do we only then count the software contained to make up the game cause that's whats being paid for not the cost of the disc manufacturing.

I understand your point of how piracy hurts company's and people don't pay for this and that and it's the same as stealing which to a point it is, but I am sorry for the USA to put money into enforcing the shut down of pirate websites many hosted outside the grasps of the US law is more money the government shouldn't be spending right now and the company's should strive to achieve anti-pirating counter measures to help enforce their security of a product like steam does.

Piracy for all it's faults helps as much as it hurts. Have it not be for piracy new security measures aren't tested cause there's no threat and new technology jobs for security are never created to help combat the threat. New and upcoming programmers with new ideas about how to shift things in a certain direction are told to sit on the fence all is well the bad guy is gone. You have said you support laws and actions being taken to fine and collect money for people caught doing acts of piracy but yet without piracy there would be no reason for combating it to be created causing less jobs and regulations to combat it.

Someone made mention of Music company's just as wrong as the pirates and there right. The music industry has gone after people doing karaoke calming it as the same violation as piracy all because Taylor Swift did get a check cause some drunk fat broad at a bar sang one of her songs. You mentioned before the government shutting down site dealing with piracy when many piracy sites aren't even hosted on US servers and only push and fascist standard by saying this site is wrong so you can't look at it so were pulling it but many books on turning Bisquick into bombs are available at your local library. Look at Pirate Bay , even though they lost in court there numbers have never been higher thanks to the publicity from the trial.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']To some degree, yes. I try to buy new (and at full price at launch) when it's a game/developer I really want to support. But I'll use goozex etc. for other games. It does hurt publishers and developers, but it's covered by fair use laws, first sale doctrine etc. so there's nothing morally wrong with buying used games, movies, cds, books etc.

Also, the used market isn't near the threat to these industries that piracy is. A person can only have 1 legit (non-bootleg) copy of a game/movies/album/book at a time. A person can only sell or trade their game to one person, who can then pass it on to one person etc.

A pirate can upload an illegal copy that can then spread to an unlimited number of people who all possess it at the same time. One illegal upload can cost a lot more sells than someone deciding to ship out a game on Goozex or trade it in to Gamestop etc.[/QUOTE]

Pirate != host

Buying used and pirating often fall into the same moral dilemma. It's convenient, readily available, and possibly detrimental to a particular company -- that's selfish. But since one is legal and the other is not, than people who download are selfish losers while those who buy used are just being savvy?

At least on the pirate side you could argue that (sometimes) they originally had no intention of buying a game should a torrent never become available -- they often really don't care all that much. But as for all the moms and dads going into gamestops asking for Halo Reach for $60, and the clerk then offers them a used copy for $55 -- they often take the more convenient deal even though they were very willing to buy the game new just a second ago.

You can say you try not to buy used, but you do. Almost everyone here does because we want our satisfaction sooner instead of having to wait for the MSRP to drop. Whether that costs the developer profits is no skin off our backs.

But I don't judge CAGs as losers because of that. We're human, and we'll take what's readily offered to us.
 
I think I argued the point once that buying used has essentially the same effect on media companies as pirating something. Either way they aren't getting another sale, you're hurting used media sellers, but if you were going to buy it used in the first place you've already kept the media company from having another copy of their product sold.

edit- And I was completely beaten to the punch.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Pirate != host
[/QUOTE]

But by pirating you're supporting those who make and distribute illegal copies of copyrighted material. That's the moral wrong versus buying uses.

As well as the simple fact that first sell doctrine makes the used market legitimate. If I (or anyone) buys something we should have the right to sell or trade something as we OWN it. As long as we don't keep a copy for ourselves of course.

What we do not have the right to do is to make illegal copies and distribute them. Nor to go online and download an illegal copy.

And I maintain that piracy is a much bigger threat than used games. Again, I trade/sell a game and I know longer have a copy, and only one person can have that used copy at a time. And eventually it will get nabbed by a collector who keeps it permanently (or get damaged and rendered useless.

Where as one immoral shitstain can make an illegal copy of something, keep one for himself and put it up online for countless people to download and keep copies of for themselves, with many of them passing it on to countless other people.

So that one illegal copy can multiplay limitlessly and cost the company a huge number of sells, where as a game bought and traded in/sold will only reach so many people and can only be possessed by one person at a time. So not nearly as many sales stand to be lost from one game sold/traded on the 2nd hand market as one illegally copied file uploaded on the internet.

[quote name='Clak']I think I argued the point once that buying used has essentially the same effect on media companies as pirating something. Either way they aren't getting another sale, you're hurting used media sellers, but if you were going to buy it used in the first place you've already kept the media company from having another copy of their product sold.[/QUOTE]

The above addresses that. It's a matter of scale. Yes a person buying a used game does no more harm to the publisher than someone who downloaded it (provided they don't pass that illegal copy on to others).

But again, one used game, book, movie etc. will only make it to so many people before it's added to a collection or lost/damaged etc. One illegal copy can be distributed to an infinite number of people as it goes viral around the net and gets passed around. That's why piracy is a greater threat. On person can do a lot more damage putting an illegal copy online than anyone can trading or selling a game they bought.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But by pirating you're supporting those who make and distribute illegal copies of copyrighted material. That's the moral wrong versus buying uses.

As well as the simple fact that first sell doctrine makes the used market legitimate. If I (or anyone) buys something we should have the right to sell or trade something as we OWN it. As long as we don't keep a copy for ourselves of course.

What we do not have the right to do is to make illegal copies and distribute them. Nor to go online and download an illegal copy.

And I maintain that piracy is a much bigger threat than used games. Again, I trade/sell a game and I know longer have a copy, and only one person can have that used copy at a time. And eventually it will get nabbed by a collector who keeps it permanently (or get damaged and rendered useless.

Where as one immoral shitstain can make an illegal copy of something, keep one for himself and put it up online for countless people to download and keep copies of for themselves, with many of them passing it on to countless other people.

So that one illegal copy can multiplay limitlessly and cost the company a huge number of sells, where as a game bought and traded in/sold will only reach so many people and can only be possessed by one person at a time. So not nearly as many sales stand to be lost from one game sold/traded on the 2nd hand market as one illegally copied file uploaded on the internet.[/QUOTE]

Well, buying used is supporting establishments that almost entirely depend on that business model.

Right now you're just repeating the fact that selling used is legal and pirating is illegal. I brought up the distribution of used games because its effect is very similar to if not worse than people downloading free copies. I'm talking about morals because that is what you brought up, though now you're backtracking to what the laws say.

I buy used instead of pirating because I'm too lazy to mod my consoles and go through all that bullshit. Used is more convenient for me, I'd rather pay $12 for a $30 MSRP title and lend it off to a friend for free after I finish it.

If the guy across the street illegally downloaded the game I just bought used, I'm not going to pretend he's less of a human being.
 
I think I made my point very clear about the difference of scale being the key--and how many more people one illegal copy can reach vs. one game sold or traded into the used market. But apparently it went over your head.

That's the key difference. The moral difference is related to that as you are supporting the pirate sites etc. and keeping the illegal copying and uploading on going etc. and implicitly approving of such activity by participating yourself.

Yes, one illegal download (not passed on to anyone else by you) does no more harm than a used game sell. The moral difference is from encouraging piracy--which involves spreading illegal content and costing limitless numbers of potential sales. Vs. supporting the used market which is harmful to these industries, but on a smaller scale for the reasons outlined above. And currently legal unless first sell doctrine goes away. So there are moral and legal reasons not to pirate, and to buy used/borrow from a friend etc. if you don't want to buy new.


Put more simply the real problem is UPLOADERs. A person uploading a game/movie etc. does much more harm than someone selling or trading a game on the used market as that uploaded file can reach an unlimited number of people simultaneiously. DOWNLOADERs are part of the problem as their downloads keep the uploading happening.
 
No, the scale is the reason it's illegal. You are right in saying that, but that's common sense and has nothing to do with the moral dilemma you brought up.

It's copyright infringement. That doesn't mean the used market is any more morally superior -- it's just legal.

You wouldn't call someone who smokes pot a shit stain of society while you go around pissing in gutters over the weekend simply because your alcohol is legal and his pot is not.
 
Again, it's the fact that illegal downloads support the pirate community that makes it immoral.

And yes I'd say smoking pot or using other illegal drugs is more immoral than drinking as you're supporting the illegal drug market with all the violence and other problems that go along with it. Now if you're growing your own pot etc., then yeah there's little difference between that and alcohol other than the illegality as your not supporting dealers, drug cartels, gangs etc. etc.

But you can't grow your own copy of Modern Warefare, so you either buy new, buy used, or pirate it. And the order those are listed are they way I'd rank them morally. Buying new is best, but at least buying use isn't supporting the shit stains who make illegal copies and distribute them online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top