Oh, you still assume that the content creators are the ones holding the copyright, how quaint.Mortai Gravesend said:It helps no one really. But it's what is fair. Because someone else made it and you don't deserve to just have it regardless of what they want. It is not a necessary item, as such it is only fair to respect the wishes of its creator.
Sure you do. Economics of scale means lower prices. Even if you don't buy from HP, the resulting competition means that you got your monitor at lower prices.BiscuitTrouser said:I dont benefit from HP getting money from you.
Haha. Good one.I give to the system the same as much asi take out
Well, I think you are.I contribute everything i earn to it to, but im not entitled to free shit. At all.
Actually, it is exactly how things work. Just because you pay in absolute numbers a whole lot less tax than Bill Gates, he doesn't (shouldn't, ideally) get any benefits from the state. You both pay your x % income tax and are considered equal.You cant "make up for it" by saying you pay for other shit you buy. Thats not how it works. You contribute toward everything you enjoy and dont expect us to pick up the slack for stuff you dont.
I don't. But you seem to presume I'm entitled to less than you.dont presume to be entitled to more shit than me
Well, Mr. Gates is probably very angry at you too.you dont have this issue of having to fund shit for other people.
I've already said. It doesn't take into account the context.Mortai Gravesend said:Oh so you're only looking at benefit. Well that's a very narrow minded way of looking at it.AnarchistFish said:I didn't say you said that, but as far as I see it, if the artist isn't actually being negatively affected by me downloading their music, I don't see why it's a problem. Maybe on the face of it it's unethical, but that's an extremely narrow minded way of looking at it.Mortai Gravesend said:So, who's being resurrected from the dead? Who!?AnarchistFish said:So who's losing out? Who's directly losing out?Mortai Gravesend said:Oh yes, let's just look at what it's done for you. That's the way to determine whether something is ethical or not.AnarchistFish said:I honestly believe that when I pirate, I'm not doing something immoral, at all. Illegal? Sure, yeah, but that doesn't take into account the context.
All piracy has done is allow me to let me listen to as much music as I want, discover new bands that I would never have bothered with otherwise, and let me pick the albums I've then wanted to purchase physically. I haven't spent any less money on music than I would have if I were forced to purchase everything. If anything I've spent more, because this way I'm guaranteed to be contributing to an artist I genuinely like. And trust me, I spend a lot on music.
What's unethical is that you enjoy it for free, when those who own it do not wish to give it away. Doesn't matter how much else you spend on music, that bought you the music you got, not rights to other music.
Or in a more direct way of saying things, now with 100% less sarcasm... I never said anyone was losing out so don't ask me stupid questions. No one needs to lose out for it to be unethical.
Oh wait, just saying something is narrow minded doesn't actually show that it is! Do I get a Nobel prize for this stunning discovery? I'll settle for a good argument for how it is narrow minded though instead of your worthless attempt at dismissal.
What difference is it to the publisher if you pirated something vs not downloading it at all. They don't get payed either way. Personally I believe pMortai Gravesend said:How would this be justification to pirate it instead of just doing without it?Uber Waddles said:Do I think charging $40 for a re-release of a game over a decade old is too much? I certainly do.
Are you at least expecting them to buy a regular copy? DRM isn't justification to get it for free.Do I think you are justified to torrent a game if its DRM is holding it back, and a group of modders have removed it from the equation? I certainly do.
Argument refuted by the existence of freeware.ablac said:How bout this. Defending piracy is incredible arrogance. If everyone pirated games then there would be no games made as there would not be any money to support their development nor would there be any incentive to create them. This is irrefutable.
Perhaps not, but it is a rebuttal of the argument that piracy is wrong because it is "stealing" because it "hurts developers" and "deprives them of profit for their hard work". It's true that there's more to the morality of piracy than "net benefit", copyright laws aren't there all for economic benefit, they're for personal control of something. That's why it's called "permission culture". It's not about profits, it's about permission, which is why the fact piracy ends in net benefit isn't a justification, because that's not what the IP is about, it's about permission and control, whether or not it is economically beneficial or not. Part of the reason many white nationalist black metal musicians release few version of their music, is because they don't want people listening to it outside of friends, and a close audience, furthermore, they want their music to be anthems of their nationality, not heard by other nations and much less other races. They don't care about profit, and exclusivity to their race is important. But because of piracy, copies of Burzum and Graveland music are everywhere, and unlike the artists would have intended, is likely listened to by non-whites. If IP itself is justified and justification has to do with permission, and creators have absolute rights to IP, then indeed it would be unjust to spread their music to be allowed to be listened to by non-whites.Mortai Gravesend said:An argument against the lost sales argument is not justification for piracy. It is simply logically fallacious to go directly from "I disproved your argument" to "Your conclusion(piracy is wrong) is therefore wrong".
Your last point is fine to a degree. But then there is the issue of consolidation of resources, where if you need a budget of say a 100,000 to make your film or launch your first album, no bank or firm would loan you that amount for something they can't understand (not there area) and no reliable way (for them) to see that loan being paid off. That is why many writers, directors, artists and so on, sell themselves to Producers and labels, who after reviewing the ideas and talents behind the proposed project, will offer money AND royalties for as long as the contract remains binding.SenorStocks said:Even though there are artists who openly say that piracy is a good thing and has helped them? There have been articles and studies that support the idea that pirates actually spend MORE money on music, film etc than non-pirates because they have access to a greater range of content and it acts as a means of promotion. You cannot just say that it's all bad. If you've ever been introduced to a new genre, author, director etc through someone lending you something which then became one of your favourites, you surely must see that.Ragsnstitches said:You're not some artist who got screwed over by some producer, or a director who lost the rights to his own film. You're not fighting a battle on creative control.SenorStocks said:Well I hope you get used to it soon, because copyright infringement isn't going anywhere. Ever. I also hope you see that it's not always a bad thing either.Ragsnstitches said:Because gaming, film, music, animation etc are things I'm passionate towards and I'm well on my way to becoming one of those people who see there hard wroth work demeaned by self-interested twits.SenorStocks said:This is just laughable. I don't care if I get another warning, you need to get a grip. How can you possibly be so angry?Ragsnstitches said:snip
If you pirate all you do is serve yourself through the effort of others.
On the subject of rights, yes, it sucks, but ultimately they signed away those rights and have to live with the consequences. You want control, don't sign that control away.
That still does nothing to justify not paying for things. If anything this weakens your point. Because i ALWAYS pay for things i encourage a lower scale MORE than you do per thing i obtain. When i buy something by your logic i help you AND the developer. When you dont you spit on the developer and refuse to help me. How nice. I contribute to the economy. Your leeching is selfish to the extreme.RubyT said:Sure you do. Economics of scale means lower prices. Even if you don't buy from HP, the resulting competition means that you got your monitor at lower prices.
Jesus we are getting to the point where you just dont even try and argue with my points. Fine lemme spell it out. In the system the artist puts things in. The artist decides his work has a value of X and puts it in. Art = X in terms of value. I take OUT art. I put IN x. See how the system has a fair exchange of goods and i havnt LEECHED from it at all? Just saying.Haha. Good one.
If the person who made the art thought the same way id be fine. However he is not. I respect the artist enough and feel that to encourage growth and new work i should pay for what i buy. You just want free shit and dont care at all that you give nothing back.Well, I think you are.
The idea behind that arguement is that you cant decide just to NOT pay for shit and expect others to encourage the growth and expansion of the product/art you again will leech and enjoy. Mr gates pays for roads and so do i. We both pay. This is why tax evasion is a crime. If i DIDNT pay mr gates could be angry. I do pay. I help. You do nothing. If i was a tax leech i expect mr gates to be angry and in fact everyone to be angry. But i pay my taxes, and Mr gates knows because of this if i ever obtain a LOT of money ill be under the same rules he is.Actually, it is exactly how things work. Just because you pay in absolute numbers a whole lot less tax than Bill Gates, he doesn't (shouldn't, ideally) get any benefits from the state. You both pay your x % income tax and are considered equal.
Now you are just lying. Dont even bother doing that, it just makes you look silly when i correct you. Where did i say you deserve less than me? I think you are entitled to what you can afford and contribute toward. If thats the same as me then yeah we have the same right to things as eachother. Im saying your entitled to the same amount of free stuff as i am. Which is none.I don't. But you seem to presume I'm entitled to less than you.
This goes both ways. WHY whould a copyright owner's authority include forcing their outdated business models on society?Mortai Gravesend said:You could try to argue that it is a net benefit and therefore justified, but that fails to show any kind of justification for a particular individual. Further it needs to overcome the hurdle of explaining why it is okay to force this net benefit on someone against their will.
If they choose not to go the most optimal route for their own profits, why should you get to decide otherwise for them?
I believe in copyright. I benefit from it. I don?t want it to go away. I love that we have laws and people to enforce them. But if I had to give up one thing, if I had to choose between copyright and the wild west, semi-lawless, innovation-fest that is the internet? I?ll take the internet every time.
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/
I hope we're discussing the same incident here, but I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents.RubyT said:But I guess these are just the wrong forums for this discussion.
There's a poll about a dude with a crowbar being shot 10 times, 4 shots while he was already down, and 60% of the people said "totally justified".
This is a nice crowd here.