Downloading is a human right.

Madkipz

New member
Apr 25, 2009
284
0
0
Lilani said:
Vault101 said:
another thing that irks me is "they should do it for free! for the art" <-hey...fuck you! of coarse every artist (should) do it for loce their art..BUT when it comes down to it, its work it requires time, effort, practice and dedication.No one expects you to do your job for free
Exactly. Lots of artists these days go to school for at least an undergraduate degree in art. It takes time and MONEY to do what they do and make what they make. They provide a service and a product, and like all services and products they deserve money for them.

I think that piracy is inevitable and it will always find a way to happen. However, running around acting like a crusader for it is only going to do more damage. People try to use "Open Source!" and "Internet Freedom!" as shields when defending piracy, but all they're doing is muddling the concepts which gives the politicians who try to do something about piracy even more of a reason to lump them all together and not care how they legislate against them.
Artists do get paid. They get paid for producing PHYSICAL goods, and commissioned artwork, but if they would intend to produce purely digital content for some absurd price, and then expect to live off something which can be copied into the infinite for no effort at all then they are quite clearly deluded.
 

BiscuitTrouser

Elite Member
May 19, 2008
2,860
0
41
See the whole "Artists should do it for free!" thing seems very misguided.

What youre saying isnt that "Artists should do it for free!" what youre saying is "Artists DONT have the right to have anything BUT "Artists should do it for free" this should be their only option by force; You have what we want, you can either hand it over for free or we. WILL. TAKE IT FROM YOU. YOU WORK FOR FREE AND YOU DONT GET TO DECIDE OTHERWISE"

If an artist goes "My art should be free" i have great respect for him. I think its admirable. However admirable DOESNT translate to "What everyone must do by force". Giving artists NO choice but to provide work for free or not at all is a dick move. You are denying them the right to even want to sell their art.

If someone doesnt want to work for free and you force them they are basically your slave. If someone WANTS to work for free then they are a volunteer. I personally do not want to deny artists the choice in how they want to charge or not charge for their own art. FORCING artists to work for free against their will is basically accepting the artist is your slave. They work for you, you enjoy it and they dont have a choice in if they are compensated or not, their feelings are TOTALLY irrelevant because you just go ahead and take it and fuck em.

If you cant tell i dispise piracy. It speaks of a subtle form of arrogance that youre better than the artist. That you think of them as your slave. Made to create for you and fuck their wishes. Its disgusting. Its not theft. It just makes you an asshole. Unless of course you DO compensate them in some way or another. Piracy for testing THEN buying is alright. Downright downloading masses of games and music is just being a dick face. I know this doesnt translate well into law. But fuck it i know whats right and wrong and artists are not slaves. They deserve the right to CHOOSE if they are compensated for work.
 

mateushac

New member
Apr 4, 2010
343
0
0
FelixG said:
mateushac said:
sry for not being from either of the master races, 'muricans or pirates).
Well, seeing as how you have sunken to the level of reverting to insults, I will say good day sir.
Please, don't be mad, though... sry for being a jerk... I seriously got off the track there.
 

Jayemsal

New member
Dec 28, 2012
209
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
Vault101 said:
Blood Brain Barrier said:
ShinyCharizard said:
Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.
If you're an artist "getting paid" is producing your work and having it appreciated. If it isn't and it's about the money, you're not what I'd call an "artist".
your kidding right?

are YOU an artist? like I already said...its not always fun and it takes dedication, if you want to be at your best as an artist then you need time, the most valuable thing.Feeling burnt out by your day job may be nessicary somtimes but not good if your want to put out good work

exposure is great and if the art in question is in a place where it is for free then fine

but in cases when it is a product then its not right to take for free...YOU do not dictate what the artist should/does want, thats just arrogant
Again, we're talking about artists. You're talking about a trader of some sort. Artists have not always produced art in return for material benefits and it is not outrageous to claim that the greatest artistic works in history were produced without any returns, nor the intention of any. It need not even be mentioned that artists who do their "work" for the money and find no reward in the production itself, are generally useless.

It says a lot about our modern era that an artist's role is narrowed down to a "job" in and of itself and therefore deserving of payment for services.
Art IS a trade...



This shit was NOT free.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
It's typical short-sighted Eurocrats, I doubt it will last, or wind up being as all inclusive as it seems.

One has to remember that there is more than one side to this. Not only the issue of creators being paid for their work which is perfectly fair and reasonable, but also the issues of taxes and tariffs being collected by the goverment. For every sale being made the goverment whether it's state, federal, or whatever else, takes a percentage of the transaction as one of their ways of making money. E-business not collecting taxes (which has become a factor with Amazon.com and Connecticut, just resolved in Connecticut's favor) has been a long standing issue, as has the simple fact that all of these lost sales and potential tax money. On top of this companies are taxed based on their overall revenues, more employees from successful companies mean more taxes being raised, and of course the taxes gained from the buildings and facilities and all the materials they buy if successful... etc... this is part of why an economic downturn is such a bad thing because with all the damage also goes a lot of mechanisms by which the goverment makes money.

When it comes to international trade there is also the issue of tariffs and taxes on goods entering a country, the US is stupidly liberal with it, but not all nations are. The thing with E-business, especially digital IPs, is that it's difficult to levy tariffs against. This both amounts to a lot of extra money for the IP holders, and presumed losses to the country that tries to police them because they spend money doing so on something they are likely to never see a share of the profits on.

As much as you might hate corperate greed, and taxes (everyone hates taxes) in the current economic crisis, and the debt we've got, you as the everyman should have some concern about people not paying their fair share, especially right now, and that incudes things like sales taxes. If your roads suck in your state, and your driving past all these closing businesses, remember that everyone who paid for something without paying the taxes (which might include you) are responsible for your state going bankrupt, and the fact that the brick and mortar businesses DID have to collect taxes (making the products more expensive) contributed to their demise, saving a buck or two on tax for each purchuse was one of the things that helped catapult things like Amazon to success.

At any rate, when it comes to Eurocrats it should be noted that Europe produces very little media compared to the US. This is not to say NONE, but the bottom line is most of the big movie studios, TV producers, music houses, etc... are largely American businesses. This applies to things like video games as well, though you are seeing Europe become a bit more competitive in terms of production. The bottom line is that enforcing copyright laws doesn't favor Europe since they will wind up spending more to protect America's profits than they will make through their own media sales.

It's like any business/goverment relation, if your country does a large business in a paticular type of goods you want to see it protected, if not, you by definition care less, and you especially don't care if it amounts to you getting something for free that your not really profiting off of.

Eurocrats (as in European goverment/Bureaucrat for those who might not have figured out the term before now, or thinking Democrat for some reason) tend to be more invested in the piracy of tangible goods, focusing on China's bootlegging of drugs, electronics, and other physical products which European nations have more of a stake in. For example France has a massive stake in Viagra which is one of the biggest knock-off thefts in history. The way Pfizers works both the US and France should be entitled to a cut (via taxes and trade) for every viagra pill sold, in addition to the profits going to Pfizers. When you consider the global market for bootleg boner pills which are on virtually every nightstand (whether you need them or not) just imagine what a differant that money makes, and you begin to see why our economy sucks while China's is growing (since this isn't the only product of it's kind).

The thing is that Eurocrats are being short sighted because seperating the issues isn't really popular and plays into the hands of the problem nations like China. After all it can be argued things like patents are IP since they just represent instructions and details on how to make something. If we ever did finally get up off our arse, and send a combine Western military after China to force them to acknowlege/follow copyright and IP laws, it's going to be nearly impossible when we remain divided on what those laws should actually be, depending on our own paticular needs. This kind of divide happens to play to the hands of nations like China and has hampered any kind of meaningful non-diplomatic response, despite almost the entire western first world agreeing they represent a problem that needs to be dealt with (yes, I know a lot of US democrats will not agree with that here, but I'm not going to argue this specific point at the moment).

At the end of the day, things like E-business, downloads, etc... become largely a US issue because we produce/manufacture very little. We tend to innovate and then do the manufacturing elsewhere, selling mostly ideas, services, and creative intellectual properties. That's fine until nobody wants to acknowlege your right to an idea or concept, and pay you for it, or related services.

To a short sighted European mentality, they only care about their immediate intrests. They do not see the point of spending the money to enforce laws for IPs and Downloads, including warehousing people in jail, on behalf of business interests they ultimatly see little or no benefit from. The bottom line being Euro law enforcement basically becoming enforcers for publisher like EA or big Hollywood studios with their businesses and tax payments centralized towards the US. Not much caring about the big picture, or how it influances related issues, and prevents the establishment of a desperatly needed common front. Not to mention being how trade wars start and continue. If this law DOES operate like it says (and has indeed been passed) you can almost guarantee the US is probably going to start screwing around with European trade in retaliation as much as it can. Even bigger trade wars between the US and Europe don't benefit anyone except businesses in The Far East.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
So, basically, pirates, you're telling me as a content creator, I should have absolutely no rights when it comes to stuff I've made? Do you have any idea how pants on head retarded this is? Maybe I don't agree with what other content creators are doing with this right, but that doesn't mean they should be stripped of it.

You want to play video games without spending money? That's fine, there's plenty of games which have alternative funding options (ie, adverts, and on the subject, people who use stuff like adblock, you're basically the same as pirates) or the creator has decided to release freely.

And, frankly, saying "but Dave, this isn't art being made by one guy, it's by the corporations" is just as deluded. Here's a new word for you to learn: commission [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_%28art%29].

Ownership is the most basic tenant of capitalism. If you don't like capitalism, well, that's fine by me, why don't you move to North Korea, see how you like the alternative?
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Madkipz said:
Artists do get paid. They get paid for producing PHYSICAL goods, and commissioned artwork, but if they would intend to produce purely digital content for some absurd price, and then expect to live off something which can be copied into the infinite for no effort at all then they are quite clearly deluded.
So I don't deserve to get paid for my instruments, recording and mixing software and hardware, and education in using instruments and musical theory because I made the mistake of living in the digital age?
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Information thus media is a human right. You can't sort out all the educational and inspirational value in media.

Now one of the ways to balance things is to say if it dose not generate a revenue it's distribution can not be stopped.

Almost everything these days in file sharing is revenue or profit based so get rid of that and have a few communities that do it for free that can barely handle the bandwidth thus limiting its distribution based not on fascist law but on what the market as a whole can really support.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
This is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of, and I've heard a lot of asinine things. These lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves, literally ashamed. I mean paper bags to cover their faces ashamed.
 

Madkipz

New member
Apr 25, 2009
284
0
0
Lilani said:
Madkipz said:
Artists do get paid. They get paid for producing PHYSICAL goods, and commissioned artwork, but if they would intend to produce purely digital content for some absurd price, and then expect to live off something which can be copied into the infinite for no effort at all then they are quite clearly deluded.
So I don't deserve to get paid for my instruments, recording and mixing software and hardware, and education in using instruments and musical theory because I made the mistake of living in the digital age?
What? Assuming you already paid for your instruments, the mixing software, the hardware, and the education in musical theory. Then you now must apply it to the real world.

Of-course you and every artist next to you deserve to get paid for your efforts and work, but this is presuming that the work is there to be paid for. You can't just work and expect to get paid, nor can you expect that digital only work to yield a return if you put a monetary value on it. Because even if you worked hard that product has now been created and can now be reproduced without any effort at all.

What you are saying is essentially that you want to deny all the people of the world their rights to share with others, and introduce artificial scarcity on your product so you can earn this money that you want because apparently YOU deserve to get paid on the expense of our human right to share.

I agree that the producers of goods need to get paid, but the current copyright monopoly in place only limits the consumers to either adhere to their paywall, find another way to consume the content "illegally", or ignore the product entirely.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
I don't think that we should have a human right for unlimited data access, but then again, I don't think that IP holders have a "human right" for stopping filesharing either.

IP is just a bunch of government-granted monopolistic regulations, that are supposed to help the economy work better. If new technology is making it's old limits useless, then there is nothing wrong with redrawing the lines.


Daverson said:
So, basically, pirates, you're telling me as a content creator, I should have absolutely no rights when it comes to stuff I've made? Do you have any idea how pants on head retarded this is? Maybe I don't agree with what other content creators are doing with this right, but that doesn't mean they should be stripped of it.
Where did anyone say that? The part of copyright law that stops individuals from downloading, is just one, recently relevant part of the whole package.

Even if we would say that personal downloading is a human right, there are plenty of other IP rights that guarantee that arzists can be the only ones who *sell* copies of their work for a profit (e.g. phisical books, or discs), that they have exclusive licensing rights (whether to be aired on on a Tv channel, or in a cinema), trademark rights (to stop foreign usage of your franchise), etc.


Daverson said:
Ownership is the most basic tenant of capitalism. If you don't like capitalism, well, that's fine by me, why don't you move to North Korea, see how you like the alternative?
And mixing up IP with actual "ownership", is the most basic tenet of misleading copyright industry propaganda.

Copyright didn't ever mean "ownership" of an idea. It meant a certain amount of monopolistic regulations granted to publishers, that were always limited by a number of public rights (Fair Use, Public Domain, ect), and consumer's rights (re-selling rights, personal copy-keeping rights, etc).

Limiting publisher's rights has nothing to do with limiting ownership, and everything to do with limiting monopolistic licenses that go as far as infringing on the individual's private communication and data transmission.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
To a certain extent placing your art on the internet is like being a street musician. Once you do it you have to realize. People can walk by without paying but still listening to your work. Its a risk your taking by using that form of media. The same goes for the internet. In a perfect world an artist would get paid for everything they do. But a short look at history will show you that just doesn't and won't happen.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Madkipz said:
What? Assuming you already paid for your instruments, the mixing software, the hardware, and the education in musical theory. Then you now must apply it to the real world.

Of-course you and every artist next to you deserve to get paid for your efforts and work, but this is presuming that the work is there to be paid for. You can't just work and expect to get paid, nor can you expect that digital only work to yield a return if you put a monetary value on it. Because even if you worked hard that product has now been created and can now be reproduced without any effort at all.

What you are saying is essentially that you want to deny all the people of the world their rights to share with others, and introduce artificial scarcity on your product so you can earn this money that you want because apparently YOU deserve to get paid on the expense of our human right to share.

I agree that the producers of goods need to get paid, but the current copyright monopoly in place only limits the consumers to either adhere to their paywall, find another way to consume the content "illegally", or ignore the product entirely.
I put my music on iTunes. There, it's available, and certainly in an easy enough place to find. There is "sharing" the music as in playing it for your friends or letting them borrow a CD you paid for, and then there's "sharing" music as in downloading an album from a torrent rather than paying for it.

And what do you mean by "paywall?" Back before downloads, you had no choice but to buy your music. You went to the store and you bought an album, or you listened to the radio and dealt with the commercials and lack of control of what you're listening to. That isn't a "paywall," it's how music works. You want to see a concert? Pay money for tickets. You want to listen to that music conveniently in your home? You pay for the album. Just like a painting you see at a store or gallery and want to have in your house--you pay for it, it's yours to enjoy. I don't know where you're getting all this "paywall" and "copyright monopoly" business, the music industry has always been about making money.
 

Madkipz

New member
Apr 25, 2009
284
0
0
Therumancer said:
It's typical short-sighted Eurocrats, I doubt it will last, or wind up being as all inclusive as it seems.

One has to remember that there is more than one side to this. Not only the issue of creators being paid for their work which is perfectly fair and reasonable, but also the issues of taxes and tariffs being collected by the goverment. For every sale being made the goverment whether it's state, federal, or whatever else, takes a percentage of the transaction as one of their ways of making money. E-business not collecting taxes (which has become a factor with Amazon.com and Connecticut, just resolved in Connecticut's favor) has been a long standing issue, as has the simple fact that all of these lost sales and potential tax money. On top of this companies are taxed based on their overall revenues, more employees from successful companies mean more taxes being raised, and of course the taxes gained from the buildings and facilities and all the materials they buy if successful... etc... this is part of why an economic downturn is such a bad thing because with all the damage also goes a lot of mechanisms by which the goverment makes money.

When it comes to international trade there is also the issue of tariffs and taxes on goods entering a country, the US is stupidly liberal with it, but not all nations are. The thing with E-business, especially digital IPs, is that it's difficult to levy tariffs against. This both amounts to a lot of extra money for the IP holders, and presumed losses to the country that tries to police them because they spend money doing so on something they are likely to never see a share of the profits on.

As much as you might hate corperate greed, and taxes (everyone hates taxes) in the current economic crisis, and the debt we've got, you as the everyman should have some concern about people not paying their fair share, especially right now, and that incudes things like sales taxes. If your roads suck in your state, and your driving past all these closing businesses, remember that everyone who paid for something without paying the taxes (which might include you) are responsible for your state going bankrupt, and the fact that the brick and mortar businesses DID have to collect taxes (making the products more expensive) contributed to their demise, saving a buck or two on tax for each purchuse was one of the things that helped catapult things like Amazon to success.

At any rate, when it comes to Eurocrats it should be noted that Europe produces very little media compared to the US. This is not to say NONE, but the bottom line is most of the big movie studios, TV producers, music houses, etc... are largely American businesses. This applies to things like video games as well, though you are seeing Europe become a bit more competitive in terms of production. The bottom line is that enforcing copyright laws doesn't favor Europe since they will wind up spending more to protect America's profits than they will make through their own media sales.

It's like any business/goverment relation, if your country does a large business in a paticular type of goods you want to see it protected, if not, you by definition care less, and you especially don't care if it amounts to you getting something for free that your not really profiting off of.

Eurocrats (as in European goverment/Bureaucrat for those who might not have figured out the term before now, or thinking Democrat for some reason) tend to be more invested in the piracy of tangible goods, focusing on China's bootlegging of drugs, electronics, and other physical products which European nations have more of a stake in. For example France has a massive stake in Viagra which is one of the biggest knock-off thefts in history. The way Pfizers works both the US and France should be entitled to a cut (via taxes and trade) for every viagra pill sold, in addition to the profits going to Pfizers. When you consider the global market for bootleg boner pills which are on virtually every nightstand (whether you need them or not) just imagine what a differant that money makes, and you begin to see why our economy sucks while China's is growing (since this isn't the only product of it's kind).

The thing is that Eurocrats are being short sighted because seperating the issues isn't really popular and plays into the hands of the problem nations like China. After all it can be argued things like patents are IP since they just represent instructions and details on how to make something. If we ever did finally get up off our arse, and send a combine Western military after China to force them to acknowlege/follow copyright and IP laws, it's going to be nearly impossible when we remain divided on what those laws should actually be, depending on our own paticular needs. This kind of divide happens to play to the hands of nations like China and has hampered any kind of meaningful non-diplomatic response, despite almost the entire western first world agreeing they represent a problem that needs to be dealt with (yes, I know a lot of US democrats will not agree with that here, but I'm not going to argue this specific point at the moment).

At the end of the day, things like E-business, downloads, etc... become largely a US issue because we produce/manufacture very little. We tend to innovate and then do the manufacturing elsewhere, selling mostly ideas, services, and creative intellectual properties. That's fine until nobody wants to acknowlege your right to an idea or concept, and pay you for it, or related services.

To a short sighted European mentality, they only care about their immediate intrests. They do not see the point of spending the money to enforce laws for IPs and Downloads, including warehousing people in jail, on behalf of business interests they ultimatly see little or no benefit from. The bottom line being Euro law enforcement basically becoming enforcers for publisher like EA or big Hollywood studios with their businesses and tax payments centralized towards the US. Not much caring about the big picture, or how it influances related issues, and prevents the establishment of a desperatly needed common front. Not to mention being how trade wars start and continue. If this law DOES operate like it says (and has indeed been passed) you can almost guarantee the US is probably going to start screwing around with European trade in retaliation as much as it can. Even bigger trade wars between the US and Europe don't benefit anyone except businesses in The Far East.
Because there is no money to be had here without violating basic human rights, forcing ISP's to expend vast amounts of value for no benefit (as the real pirates will just go offline and start decrypting their files like child pornography industry). Meanwhile the EU would be expending their tax money to have even more people in jail and spend lots of money enforcing American practices that hold no benefit to anyone as a whole.

This is basically Europe investing in physical goods, and physical tangible properties while discouraging the current trend in the digital age for people to monetize their digital products while also producing nothing of real value.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Antari said:
To a certain extent placing your art on the internet is like being a street musician. Once you do it you have to realize. People can walk by without paying but still listening to your work. Its a risk your taking by using that form of media. The same goes for the internet. In a perfect world an artist would get paid for everything they do. But a short look at history will show you that just doesn't and won't happen.

Best analogy ever.

With data sharing being such a fundamental part of how the Internet works, the publishers who expect to control it are like street musicians who would expect policemen to arrest everyone who comes too close to "their side" of the street.

It would be nice for them if they could do that, but it would harm too many ordinary people's ordinary daily commute, that it would cause more harm than good.

It's the same with the Internet. Copying comes so naturally on the Internet, that if the publishers' onlyway of staying rich is that they must patrol every casual internet user's data transmission and persecute them as soon as they click on the wrong thing, then maybe they need to rethink their business models.
 

Madkipz

New member
Apr 25, 2009
284
0
0
Lilani said:
Madkipz said:
What? Assuming you already paid for your instruments, the mixing software, the hardware, and the education in musical theory. Then you now must apply it to the real world.

Of-course you and every artist next to you deserve to get paid for your efforts and work, but this is presuming that the work is there to be paid for. You can't just work and expect to get paid, nor can you expect that digital only work to yield a return if you put a monetary value on it. Because even if you worked hard that product has now been created and can now be reproduced without any effort at all.

What you are saying is essentially that you want to deny all the people of the world their rights to share with others, and introduce artificial scarcity on your product so you can earn this money that you want because apparently YOU deserve to get paid on the expense of our human right to share.

I agree that the producers of goods need to get paid, but the current copyright monopoly in place only limits the consumers to either adhere to their paywall, find another way to consume the content "illegally", or ignore the product entirely.
I put my music on iTunes. There, it's available, and certainly in an easy enough place to find. There is "sharing" the music as in playing it for your friends or letting them borrow a CD you paid for, and then there's "sharing" music as in downloading an album from a torrent rather than paying for it.

And what do you mean by "paywall?" Back before downloads, you had no choice but to buy your music. You went to the store and you bought an album, or you listened to the radio and dealt with the commercials and lack of control of what you're listening to. That isn't a "paywall," it's how music works. You want to see a concert? Pay money for tickets. You want to listen to that music conveniently in your home? You pay for the album. Just like a painting you see at a store or gallery and want to have in your house--you pay for it, it's yours to enjoy. I don't know where you're getting all this "paywall" and "copyright monopoly" business, the music industry has always been about making money.
People paid for the album, and people used to gather around a music player to share it with their friends. People even used empty VCR's to record movies that went on TV. Guess what the TV industry did? They cried piracy, and now there exists this thing called the internet that allows anyone that have brought a digital good to share it with everyone for free.

What you are saying is essentially that you support a company that lobbies to deny all the people of the world their rights to share with others. A company using a user agreement contract to introduce artificial scarcity on your product so you and them can earn more money. Money that you want because apparently YOU deserve to get paid on the expense of our human right to share.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Madkipz said:
[

Because there is no money to be had here without violating basic human rights, forcing ISP's to expend vast amounts of value for no benefit (as the real pirates will just go offline and start decrypting their files like child pornography industry). Meanwhile the EU would be expending their tax money to have even more people in jail and spend lots of money enforcing American practices that hold no benefit to anyone as a whole.

This is basically Europe investing in physical goods, and physical tangible properties while discouraging the current trend in the digital age for people to monetize their digital products while also producing nothing of real value.
Not really, it is not a basic human right to steal from someone else, and things like video games, music, and movies are luxuries, not the nessecities of survival. Thieves by definition should be punished.

That said, value is dictated by people wanting something. The reason why this is an issue is that people want the TV shows, movies, music, games, etc... which is why they have value, they just don't want to pay for them, so they rob the creators by taking them for free. It's pretty straightforward at a basic level.

Europe isn't acting because these things have no value, but because Europe is too short sighted to see anything besides how it benefits them right here and now. Europe as a whole does not produce the IPs that it wants, or at least not in any quantities equivilent to what other nations produce, thus it feels it has no vested interest in protecting such goods. Europe has never been good at seeing the big picture and how on a fundemental level there is no differance between intangible creative works at this point, and physical goods, all that matters is the demand. Not to mention that at it's core the information behind physical goods (the pattern for a pair of pants, the formula to make a drug, etc...) is also intangible by it's very nature, which is the arguement China makes when robbing everyone including Europe. To their way of thinking they have the right to simply analyze or obtain the formula for a drug and manufacture it in any quantities they want without having to pay the creator who could very well have invested billions simply testing it to make sure it was safe.

It's a pretty straightforward situation right now, trying to say it's an issue of basic human rights is ridiculous though.

For the most part we agree though, the bottom line being Europe not wanting to spend the money to police someone else's trade in any area it doesn't participate much in. The big picture simply doesn't enter into their consideration, at least not yet, which is ultimatly a very European perspective, Europe as a whole being short sighted enough where it rarely acts until things are right on their front door and at a cataclysmic level. Also should Europe ever start producing more competitively on the IP front you'll probably see the tune change rapidly, and trying to overturn this kind of ruling is going to be amusing to watch. Ditto for the fact that I don't think Europe gets that a trade war isn't good for anyone, Europe costs the US money, the US is going to start screwing with European trade right back, and as I said, the only one that benefits from that is The Far East. Europe might not benefit from enforcing IP laws directly, but trade has usually been a "you scratch our back, we scratch yours" arrangement, you watch the back of the US and what it's trading, we do the same for your goods, nobody gets robbed, everyone makes money. To be honest that paradigm falling apart contributes to the economic problems, combine with nobody yet wanting to stand up to China which is pretty much running a thieving vaccum economy, ripping off everyone, while we all squabble, and nobody gets organized enough to send a combined western military to force economic compliance BEFORE China can build up a substantial enough Navy to make it that big a problem.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Madkipz said:
People paid for the album, and people used to gather around a music player to share it with their friends. People even used empty VCR's to record movies that went on TV. Guess what the TV industry did? They cried piracy, and now there exists this thing called the internet that allows anyone that have brought a digital good to share it with everyone for free.
I don't feel like the situations are that comparable, because with TVs and VCRs the most anyone could feasibly share it with was their friends which would be like a handful of people at most. It was limited to your specific geographic location and your specific pool of friends. With music piracy, it would be more comparable to somebody in New York who makes 10,000 copies of a movie and sends a copy of the tape to everybody they can. Suddenly you've gone from half a dozen people getting it for free to tens of thousands, and they aren't limited to any geographic location. Two totally different scales of problems, here.

What you are saying is essentially that you support a company that lobbies to deny all the people of the world their rights to share with others. A company using a user agreement contract to introduce artificial scarcity on your product so you and them can earn more money. Money that you want because apparently YOU deserve to get paid on the expense of our human right to share.
Unless you're going to sit here and claim there is absolutely no difference between borrowing a friend's copy of Dark Side of the Moon and putting the songs on your iPod and putting that copy of Dark Side of the Moon on the Internet for millions of strangers to download, I think you're not understanding what I mean by "piracy."

Also note I understand there are certain gray areas. Again, I see no problem in letting somebody borrow a copy of an album and ripping the songs, or even downloading a song or movie or whatever that is very hard to find. I even believe that piracy is currently the only way to preserve certain vintage games. I think it does more to honor the artists involved for a game to exist forever as ROMs for emulators than to let them completely die out because the publisher went under, or didn't bother putting it on something like the PSN or XBLA. But I will not accept the argument that torrents are no different from letting a friend borrow an album. Again, the scale of the situations make them completely different.