Internet piracy site in bid for own island to beat copyright laws 62 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#31 13 years ago

Fez BoyBecause piracy doesn't hurt anybody except the very, very rich.[/QUOTE] How about all artists, all game & movie makers and small investors? "Goal sanctifies the means", "from rich for the poor" like Robin Hood eh? I suggest you to think about your logic a little bit further.

[quote=MrFancypants]Right now almost every person with a personal computer is able to pirate copyrighted material, but the industry is anyway succesful.

In that case, I'm sure you can give me 10 % from your wage for me because you still have that 90 %? This is not a question if companies are getting bankrupt or that they wouldn't be succesful, but what is morally & legally right. Piracy is not, no matter how "evil" those music corporations are. What if all would just get piracy products?




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,056 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,041 Posts

9 Threads

#32 13 years ago
Relander;3483759 In that case, I'm sure you can give me 10 % from your wage for me because you still have that 90 %? This is not a question if companies are getting bankrupt or that they wouldn't be succesful, but what is morally & legally right. Piracy is not, no matter how "evil" those music corporations are. What if all would just get piracy products?

We're not talking about 10% and I'm not earning hundreds of millions per year.

Read my whole post, I didn't say it is morally right, only that piracy is a logical consequence of the behaviour of the movie and music industry.




Fez Boy

L-L-Look at you, ha-cker

50 XP

9th October 2005

0 Uploads

607 Posts

0 Threads

#33 13 years ago
Relander;3483759How about all artists, all game & movie makers and small investors? "Goal sanctifies the means", "from rich for the poor" like Robin Hood eh? I suggest you to think about your logic a little bit further.

I don't follow logic on this issue. I follow the age-old doctrine of "ooh, good stuff for minimum effort."

Case in point. If I were to eschew my tastes and download a Beatles track free of charge, who gets hurt? John Lennon? No, because he's dead. Likewise for George Harrison. Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr? No, because they go to sleep every night on a massive bed made of money, with Barbera Bach, possibly the worst Bond girl ever. They couldn't give a fuck whether I download one of their tracks, because they are so rich that it doesn't matter.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#34 13 years ago

MrFancypantsWe're not talking about 10% and I'm not earning hundreds of millions per year.[/quote] I don't know the exact number, but it's significant amount of money that companies, artists, investors etc. are losing due to piracy. The amount of revenues don't justify piracy and talking about "hundreds of millions per year" is putting all artists, investors etc. into the same box where all are rich when this obiviously isn't the case.

only that piracy is a logical consequence of the behaviour of the movie and music industry.

Sure it's about partially that, but I think it's more about people's indifference towards the work of the others and as practicing piracy is so easy and cheap, not to mention that you never get caught because of it. It's much, much less troublesome to download a movie from some internet page with just getting connected and waiting for some moment instead of getting to town, searching the movie and paying it.

[quote=Fez Boy]I don't follow logic on this issue. I follow the age-old doctrine of "ooh, good stuff for minimum effort."

Luckily all people aren't the same, that's very comforting fact.

If I were to eschew my tastes and download a Beatles track free of charge, who gets hurt? John Lennon? No, because he's dead. Likewise for George Harrison. Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr? No, because they go to sleep every night on a massive bed made of money, with Barbera Bach, possibly the worst Bond girl ever. They couldn't give a fuck whether I download one of their tracks, because they are so rich that it doesn't matter.

How can you known that they don't care? I'm sure they do because someone is exploiting their works without paying for it. I ask you again: how about all artists (not just those who are rich you know), game & movie makers (same thing) and small investors? They don't care, right?




GOD111

I Am Teh God

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,967 Posts

0 Threads

#35 13 years ago

@Relander. If it WAS legal would you consider downloading music for free?




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#36 13 years ago
*SW3D3*If it WAS legal would you consider downloading music for free?

If it would be legal and okay for the people in concern, then it would be different.




GOD111

I Am Teh God

50 XP

1st July 2004

0 Uploads

6,967 Posts

0 Threads

#37 13 years ago
Relander;3483828If it would be legal and okay for the people in concern, then it would be different.

That wasn't my question.

Let's say you lived in the Netherlands for example. You know that the American artist isn't to kean on you downloading his music. The problem is though that he can't reach you, since you live in Holland, where file sharing and downloading is legal. Would that so mean that you wouldn't even consider downloading his music?




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,056 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,041 Posts

9 Threads

#38 13 years ago
Relander;3483808I don't know the exact number, but it's significant amount of money that companies, artists, investors etc. are losing due to piracy. The amount of revenues don't justify piracy and talking about "hundreds of millions per year" is putting all artists, investors etc. into the same box where all are rich when this obiviously isn't the case.

Like I said, compared the their overall income the loss because of piracy is negligible; someone who doesn't want to pay 30 euro for a dvd that costs maybe 50 cent to produce will not change his mind just because he isn't able to download it anymore. He will try to get it from a friend, lend it from a store or just not get it at all. Then there is the positive effect of piracy for the industry - strange that ever since the internet is around sales of music and movies increased so much.

Sure it's about partially that, but I think it's more about people's indifference towards the work of the others and as practicing piracy is so easy and cheap, not to mention that you never get caught because of it. It's much, much less troublesome to download a movie from some internet page with just getting connected and waiting for some moment instead of getting to town, searching the movie and paying it.

That's another thing the industry is responsible for: until recently they just didn't offer easy methods of aquiring movies and guess why? Because the only thing that justifies their ridiculous prices is the advantage of material possesion. If they wanted to they could have set up easy systems for buying movies online long ago, just as it is possible to rent videos in stores for a long time already.




Snake Morrison

There will be death.

50 XP

21st November 2004

0 Uploads

743 Posts

0 Threads

#39 13 years ago
Fez BoyBecause piracy doesn't hurt anybody except the very, very rich.

Should we be allowed to break into the very, very rich people's homes and steal directly from them? Should we be allowed to kill the very, very rich? I hate to extend the analogy to such obvious absurdities, but it's just to make the point that being rich shouldn't open you up to criminal behavior. That's discrimination, pure and simple.

Relander also makes a very good point; not all artists are necessarily rich, and piracy hurts them too.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#40 13 years ago

*SW3D3*Let's say you lived in the Netherlands for example. You know that the American artist isn't to kean on you downloading his music. The problem is though that he can't reach you, since you live in Holland, where file sharing and downloading is legal.

Would that so mean that you wouldn't even consider downloading his music?

I would consider it but find it wrong towards that American artist. Music isn't that expensive and if it would be, then I wouldn't just download it.

someone who doesn't want to pay 30 euro for a dvd that costs maybe 50 cent to produce will not change his mind just because he isn't able to download it anymore. He will try to get it from a friend, lend it from a store or just not get it at all.

Some people are like that but not all.

Then there is the positive effect of piracy for the industry - strange that ever since the internet is around sales of music and movies increased so much.

Or then the increase of music sales just happened to start in the same time as the internet came around. How about advertising and music/movie previews in the net?

That's another thing the industry is responsible for: until recently they just didn't offer easy methods of aquiring movies and guess why? Because the only thing that justifies their ridiculous prices is the advantage of material possesion.

That doesn't make sense: why they wouldn't want to market their products easily at the internet, getting extra money and prevent piracy, thus getting more money? Besides, "ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder and if you don't like the prices, then you just don't buy but not pirate either.

All blame on companies and not individuals who pirate?