The Shrine

Leftover hostility from a good friend of mine laughing at me because I buy software and he doesn't and laughing at the fact that in doing so I basically subsidize his piracy so he pays less money and I pay more. (I yelled at him, too.)

But, also, people seem to have this idea that music companies are rolling in dough, stars hurting by any standard so what's the problem, and etc. It's not the stars that lose out from piracy - it's people like a former friend of mine who makes a modest income as a teacher and part-time musician who plays drums for hire, "peons" (read: normal people) at recording companies who again don't really make that much, like audio engineers, publicists, etc., and all the other hundreds upon hundreds of people who make a non-star-sized income working every day in order to produce and distribute a good CD.

Now, I think CDs are overpriced (why does a CD cost as much as a movie when a movie costs TONS more to make and distribute?) and I've heard record company executives can be greedy bastards. However, I don't believe piracy is the right answer, and I don't think it's likely to make them any less greedy anyway.

Finally, and this is the real thing that irks me, the combination of the selfishness AND hypocrisy of a lot of serious intellectual-property pirates irritates me. People will go to absurd lengths to justify that no one gets hurt, which isn't true in a financial sense, and all I usually hear behind it is someone who's quite selfish and refuses to give someone else any of their money for something that this hypothetical someone else may have put heart and soul into.

I pretty much don't pirate anything anymore. I have a few CDs from AllOfMP3 on my hard drive, but it's only stuff I absolutely haven't been able to find in used CD stores or Napster.

Now, I'm sure one could make a lot of arguments about used CDs, since the artists and record companies don't make any money from those either (as far as I know anyway), and it's something to think about. I like the new Napster a lot because I'm directly putting money into the industry (if one considers Napster just an alternate distribution arm) However, I do have substantial financial considerations to think of right now, and at least in principle there's a big difference between buying a used CD (where the store owners and employees are still contributing to society in the form of taxes) and getting album after album without every giving anything else back to anyone except for other people who don't want to pay for it either. I've also ended up buying CDs new at used stores if a popular CD I want is not available used, so at least the industry is getting something, even if it's not as much as if I bought everything new.

As far as staying on topic, my apologies. I still feel somewhat protective of this board (holdover from when I created and maintained it), and I think piracy is too destructive for me to want to see an illegal rip of something passed around in any community of which I am a member.

Now, if I'd been thinking, I would have realized that this is a rip of an episode that was aired on public TV (I think anyway), and honestly I don't really care at that point - I think people who seriously go after stuff that's been on the air publicly are wasting their time, and I think the world would be a better place if being aired on public broadcast put a piece of IP into the public domain.

However, since I know a bunch of you are pirating a whole bunch of other stuff that has not ever been aired publicly, my rant stands in relation to all of that.

Sincerely,
A Still Very Pissed Off Former (But No-Longer) Pirate

Pirates think they're like the Robin Hood of the Internet stealing from rich and giving it to the poor (or actually themselves). I think some even have the idea that they're going to get something changed because there are companies dumb enough to believe people would actually not pirate stuff if it was good. CD/games/whatever being overpriced and piracy is actually two different things here. These commodities are overpriced but no more out of whack than say milk is artificially overpriced. If this is a problem people can organize through the usual ways to bring some sense into the pricing. No company's going to lower the price because people pirate things. Instead they'll charge more because they figure they got rid of all the people who are willing to pay low prices (it is generally safe to say the less you're willing to pay for something, the more likely you're going to pirate it) and might as well make more money off those who are left.

Yeah, but nobody is pirating milk. If there was a way to pirate milk, nobody would really bother because it's too much trouble to worry about trying to get a free thing out of $2/gallon. Software, movies, music, etc. is more expensive, on the other hand.

And yes, it's already gotten to be at the point where software companies seriously overcharge for "business-level" software. Is $600 too much for a word processor? Fuck yes! I don't even care how many features it has, as it has been developed for a long time. Textpad had a helluva lot of features for a text editor, and they aren't charging $600 for it. It's pretty much become common knowledge that products like Word are meant to be pirated for the general public, and they charge the extraoridinary price for business. Most anti-piracy leagues don't even care about business software being pirated by normal users, but they seem to care about gaming software, since businesses aren't going to front the money for the losses of piracy by the general public.

In the long run, the idea that piracy causes a major loss of profit is mostly myth. This isn't Singapore, where it's practically legal to sell copies of anything on the street corner.

Estimates of monetary amounts lost by companies due to piracy are based on flawed assumptions that make the figures ultimately useless.

Anecdotal evidence supports the "Piracy leads to sales that otherwise wouldn't exist" theory, but to what degree, it's impossible to speculate.

Given how nebulous the entire thing is, I stopped giving a shit a long time ago.

I don't think piracy causes a <i>major</i> loss of revenue, and I agree that a lot of corporate pricing policies could use some improvement too. I also agree that the data is pretty inconclusive so far. But my guesses fall somewhere in the "high minor" loss of revenue category. I admittedly could stand to do some research on the subject if I'm really going to keep talking about it.

As regards Word...that needs a whole topic to itself. I think a lot of Windows product prices are horribly skewed because of the monopoly power Microsoft continues to wield; I also think there's a lot more positive benefit to be gained by piracy of certain types of software, mostly in terms of the learning value that it can have to those who are beginning to get their skills. If we're going to talk about non-entertainment-related software piracy, I actually would prefer it if we treated that as an entirely separate discussion. My comments were intended towards piracy of entertainment-related intellectual property (music, film, and games).

With regards to "Piracy leads to sales that otheriwse wouldn't exist", there's a certain amount of truth to that. I was exposed to a lot of music I would never have otherwise found (including some of my current favorite groups - Orbital comes to mind) via Audiogalaxy. However, when I was actively pirating, I wasn't paying for any of it. It was only after I deleted all my pirated music that my money began flowing back to the music industry again.

There are other, more interesting things I want to touch on regarding this topic too- despite my own anti-piracy sentiments, I have to admit that I think there's a serious possibility that it's a doomed cause, and there are things I think will happen to the industries involved because of it. I think those who truly love doing what they do will still do it, and who knows, perhaps that will lead to less record-company-fabricated boy/girl bands and etc. (To me, this would be a good thing.) However, I think if piracy continues, it's going to be a lot harder to put out top-notch efforts, because a truly top piece of entertainment IP does require a lot of effort put into it, and with the world the way it is now, people aren't going to be able to afford it in the long run. It also removes incentive for people who might be talented and create good product, but who would do something else if the financial rewards were greater, to join one of the industries in question.

Erk. Did I just shoot my own case in the foot by realizing that removing the obscene financial rewards for creating IP might reduce the chance of future rappers like 50 Cent or Nelly?

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I would love to continue this part of it. I even promise to keep my cool as long as no one says they think all IP should be free when what they really mean is "I want to watch/listen to/play xxx but I don't want to spend any money on it!"

Dude, while I understand your noble feelings on piracy, let me just defend downloading StarGate for a sec.

Let's say I actually enjoy watching it, I'll actually set up my recorder to download future episodes, without the ability to download the episode I probley would never ever even bother to watch the show, and of course the only otherway to watch the episode is to wait for it to reair, which could be months from now. It's a win-win situation really. >_>

Let's say I didn't enjoy it. I lose nothing, they lose nothing, nothing lost nothing gained. I wouldn't watch the 2nd episode without watching the first, because I hate to be lost or lose anything. when it comes to television.

Mini-rant over.

Eric wrote:Let's say I didn't enjoy it. I lose nothing, they lose nothing, nothing lost nothing gained. I wouldn't watch the 2nd episode without watching the first, because I hate to be lost or lose anything. when it comes to television.

You're a full season behind, not just one episode.

Tortolia wrote:

Eric wrote:Let's say I didn't enjoy it. I lose nothing, they lose nothing, nothing lost nothing gained. I wouldn't watch the 2nd episode without watching the first, because I hate to be lost or lose anything. when it comes to television.

You're a full season behind, not just one episode.

Exactly, so I'm not gonna watch it. ;p

Tortolia wrote:Estimates of monetary amounts lost by companies due to piracy are based on flawed assumptions that make the figures ultimately useless.

Anecdotal evidence supports the "Piracy leads to sales that otherwise wouldn't exist" theory, but to what degree, it's impossible to speculate.

Given how nebulous the entire thing is, I stopped giving a shit a long time ago.

For sure, they assume that you would purchase the entire CD for each song you download. That's propoganda bullshit.

And the majority of piraters would buy a negligible amount IMO. My friends and I are that way. I don't pirate things I want, just stuff I don't or aren't sure of. If I really like it, I'll buy it (let's not get into the ethical debate here, been there, done that). But I sure as hell ain't gonna buy everything I pirate. It probably won't translate to any more than 1-5% at most for me. I believe most people are like that. You have some that use it to pirate stuff that they would otherwise buy, but not nearly as many as estimated IMO.

Mental wrote:I don't think piracy causes a major loss of revenue

Oh yes it does. Why the hell do you think so many music companies have jumped on the "pay per song" download bandwagon. In it's first full year of mass market (1999, I believe), Napster actually increased CD sales by 20%....the next year they decreased by 46%. That's the effect the music downloads had on the business, particularly after CD-Rs became so cheap. It's a HUGE effect 'cause songs are so small. Movies aren't quite that bad yet but as the high-speed infrastructure is bettered, that'll be affects to that degree soon enough.

Just because you don't plan on buying something doesn't give you the right to it. And no, if you guys can pirate milk, you would too (assuming you drink milk on a regular basis).

It is also laughable to suggest that piracy supports sales because if this is true the company themselves would ALREADY BE DOING THIS because it'd be profitable. Arguments like this always sprung up where some artist somewhere decides to give their copyright away for free and didn't end up starving, and now all the kind hearted pirates want the world to know this is the right way by helping the artists who don't know about that. If this is such a great idea, people will catch on and they don't need your help.

The industry probably uses # of downloads X price which is obviously a high estimate, but even if you divide it by 10 you get a pretty hefty sum and it sets each unit at close to the truth-telling level which is a very good estimate on the value of each unit.

Don Wang wrote:It is also laughable to suggest that piracy supports sales because if this is true the company themselves would ALREADY BE DOING THIS because it'd be profitable.

Honestly, you're giving the corporations WAAAAAAY too much credit. The corporations don't bother with hard evidence to support their claims. They try to pick a reason and go with it, hoping that it's the right reason. If any of these companies were smart, they would be funding research to figure out which activity or what reason is the cause of the most revenue loss, instead of the speculation they do now.

Hell, this is how the food industry works. The KFC corporate HQ has a taste test deal about 5 times a day. Everybody signs up for a free lunch and 7-8 bucks for being in the survey. From that data, they figure out if a new product is good or bad.

SineSwiper wrote:

Don Wang wrote:It is also laughable to suggest that piracy supports sales because if this is true the company themselves would ALREADY BE DOING THIS because it'd be profitable.

Honestly, you're giving the corporations WAAAAAAY too much credit. The corporations don't bother with hard evidence to support their claims. They try to pick a reason and go with it, hoping that it's the right reason. If any of these companies were smart, they would be funding research to figure out which activity or what reason is the cause of the most revenue loss, instead of the speculation they do now.

Hell, this is how the food industry works. The KFC corporate HQ has a taste test deal about 5 times a day. Everybody signs up for a free lunch and 7-8 bucks for being in the survey. From that data, they figure out if a new product is good or bad.

No, because as long as one guy eventually figures this out, he'd become rich very quickly if we assume that giving away your stuff leads to more profit. Since every pirate obviously has this figured out, it can't be that hard for at least one person that's producing IP to figure this out. It doesn't have to be a RIAA person either. Any person producing IP is free to leave their current contract and start giving away their stuff for free.

I have heard of limited success with people giving away their music but there is no obvious indication that they'd have been any worse off if they sign a contract with a label. You'd assume such people probably makes above average stuff since it is very hard to imagine that these guys who give away stuff for free produces a lousy product but somehow people decided to pay them via concert/donation/whatever even though the original good was free. Certainly you don't hear someone making millions by giving stuff away.

Milk is artifically kept at a high price because a small group of people cares a lot more about making extra $ on milk than the public cares about paying for milk.

Likewise CD or software is kept at a high price because IP owners care about making $ a lot more than public cares about paying for these product. If you want something changed, you got to get everyone to stop paying the high prices but pirating doesn't work because every IP owner is going to figure the guys who pirates are the guys who aren't willing to pay much for their product (most people even say that while pirating, and it is certainly a reasonable assumption) so they'll just look at demand and realize the masses that will buy for cheap prices got replaced by piracy, so you might as well raise the price since you can't get the sales taken by piracy back. Yes you lose some business but as long as we assume people who are willing to pay more for a product is also less likely to pirate, you'd make more money by charging a higher price.

If people in general stopped buying a product you'd expect to see the price decreased (easily observed in real life). But if only people who aren't willing to pay much are the ones who stopped buying a product, you actually want to raise your prices. You can observe this in MMORPG subscription rates which has actually gone up in light of more competition because most companies figure anyone who's going to defect to WoW/whatever has already quit anyway and they're not going to get them back, so they only have the diehards left and they should (and do) actually raise price instead of decreasing it.

Don Wang wrote:No, because as long as one guy eventually figures this out, he'd become rich very quickly if we assume that giving away your stuff leads to more profit. Since every pirate obviously has this figured out, it can't be that hard for at least one person that's producing IP to figure this out. It doesn't have to be a RIAA person either. Any person producing IP is free to leave their current contract and start giving away their stuff for free.

You assume that "one guy" can start a company and get rich. It rarely happen, even with a normal scheme of profitting. The Big 7 (or is it 5 now?) aren't about to give up their positions in the music industry just because some yahoo is going to give away their music.

Besides, we aren't even talking about giving away music. We're talking about how piracy affect the industry. Quit changing the subject.

Don Wang wrote:Likewise CD or software is kept at a high price because IP owners care about making $ a lot more than public cares about paying for these product. If you want something changed, you got to get everyone to stop paying the high prices but pirating doesn't work because every IP owner is going to figure the guys who pirates are the guys who aren't willing to pay much for their product (most people even say that while pirating, and it is certainly a reasonable assumption) so they'll just look at demand and realize the masses that will buy for cheap prices got replaced by piracy, so you might as well raise the price since you can't get the sales taken by piracy back. Yes you lose some business but as long as we assume people who are willing to pay more for a product is also less likely to pirate, you'd make more money by charging a higher price.

Under your argument, piracy isn't making a lasting effect on the market, because the price hasn't changed since they started hiking the price with the new technology of CDs.

I find your faith in capitalism most disturbing...

Don Wang wrote:Just because you don't plan on buying something doesn't give you the right to it.

I agree, so I draw the line at the "if i'm not going to buy it, I can pirate it" part. I can pirate anything I want, but I don't. Just the stuff I wouldn't have spent money on to begin with. Nor harm no foul in my mind.

Right or wrong, that's my way of justifying it.

Err, where do you get the idea it doesn't hurt. The revenue is obviously less but on top of that people who are still buying are paying more now because all the people who weren't going to pay much for it is lost to piracy. It hurts the content producer as well as the people who are still paying for it because in the case of piracy the price goes up instead of down as you'd expect with declining interest (because the piracy lost sales aren't recoverable).

As for Zeus, you're totally wrong, but you can believe what you want. I'm not the one to judge that. But don't sound like you have some great philosophy you're sticking to.

I don't think we are really listening to each other in this argument, so I'll stop arguing about it.

SineSwiper wrote:In the long run, the idea that piracy causes a major loss of profit is mostly myth. This isn't Singapore, where it's practically legal to sell copies of anything on the street corner.

$#^#$^#$^@#$^ that's not Singapore, that's Taiwan.....

A better reply now that I have more time.

I have several thousand dollars worth of pirated software currently installed across my computers. Pretty much ALL the software I am running is pirated. Why? Because simply I'm a cheap bastard that does not have any morals.

It's kind of oxymoronic. On one hand, I've develop applications and such, thus I know how deep and bad the effects piracy causes, but on the other hand, I care more about my wallet and if I can get something for free, might as well do it. Hell, one of the topics I took for my bachelor then was on computer ethics……..

Do I really need those pirated software? Well, in a way I do.

I have Oracle 10g, MS SQL and MySQL currently running, in terms of just DBMS. Most of the CASE tools I used are also pirated, along with web/application servers etc……

Despite standards that are already in place, differences between these software makes it so that I might need to rework parts of an application in order to suit the software type my clients are using.

To me, buying all these software just don’t seem economically viable to me.

On the flip side, I can always write applications, then go to the client’s place, test the application there, then fix whatever appears, or develop on an open source environment, but reality is hard to comprehend at times.

In terms of pirating entertainment media, at last count I have 17k of mp3 stored in my hard disk and only 50-60 physical CDs.

I can practically on Winamp and listen to my entire collection of mp3s for 2 months, day and night, before a song is repeated.

Do I like those songs? Most of them.

Have I listen to all 17k of them? Yes.

Why don’t I buy the actual albums? Because I’m a cheap bastard and I think only about myself. Screw the artist, I am just not willing to pay, except in rare situation where I feel songs are good.

Out of the 50-60 physical CDs I have, I’ll estimate only 10-15 of them were bought due to listening to the mp3 prior.

For several years in Singapore, piracy was ridiculously common, to the point as Sine describe, you can literally find a shop selling pirated stuff in every street.

These shops typically sell a CD for SG$5 compared to SG$60-70 which is common for a PS/PC game then. Games that spread across more then a CD are more expensive. For instance FFVII cost SG$10 at that time, because it’s 3 CDs

It’s illegal, but people still do it, because it’s highly profitable. These shops typically get their source from Malaysia factories. Their base cost is around SG$0.80 to SG$1.50/disc. On an average day, they can easily sell 300-400 CDs

Taiwan still has some of their weird as hell copyright law, which means several form of piracy is actually legal in there. A good example is your Son May CD, thought several changes are being done there.

Police raids, tougher punishment etc has brought the existence of these shops down significantly, but these shops are still quite rampart in Malaysia. Back then, you get fine a trivial amount if you get caught, which the profit from sales etc more then covers up.

The sentence now IIRC is jail + SG$5 for every CD found + a fixed amount of fine.

Ultimately, back to the first point, I just pirate stuff because I’m a cheap bastard. Between free and having to pay, I’ll go for free. I won’t give an honorable excuse for what I do, I am just that cheap.

BTW, pirated milk actually exists in one form or another…..

This topic is dumb.

According to the industry, I've cost them well over 100k in lost sales over the last few years...uh huh.

Like most people, I try before I buy. If I like it, I buy it (and if I know I am gonna like it, I buy it without pirating it first)...that's pretty much the norm for casual downloaders. In fact, I've probably PURCHASED more movies and games thanks to downloading (bf1942, nwn, GTA, mafia and tons of others come to mind).

The majority of my MP3's come from CDs I already own...and those CDs (90%+) come from a used store....price that shit appropriately or fuck off. Besides, the bulk of an artists earnings come from tours/shows (as I'm sure your friend does Mental), with the exception of a few established or indie low-distro artists.

My Xbox collection is 40 legit games strong, my DVD collection is well over one 160 booklet (250 if you include copied DVDs....I paid to rent them, I don't like being forced to watch them before the return date. Oh well.)

I pirate shit, but I'm also this industries A+ customer base.

As usual, kali, you've made just enough good points that everyone will probably ignore the fact that you opened your salvo with dismissive condescension.

However, my argument boils down to this: While some people do "try before they buy," many don't. Not everyone in the world acts exactly the same way you do. I don't really like talking to you, so I think I'll stop there.

To everyone else, something that hasn't been touched on quite as well as it needs to be, I think, is the following...

Sales aside - is it fair that someone gets something for free that someone else is paying for? I hate to even bring up what I have a feeling may get derided as moralistic or naive, but I think it's a valid concern.

I believe that continued piracy encourages an entitled attitude on the part of some of the pirates, and I can make lots and lots of points on why, often, a sense of entitlement in an individual often hurts society as a whole.

Mental wrote:As usual, kali, you've made just enough good points that everyone will probably ignore the fact that you opened your salvo with dismissive condescension.

However, my argument boils down to this: While some people do "try before they buy," many don't. Not everyone in the world acts exactly the same way you do. I don't really like talking to you, so I think I'll stop there.

To everyone else, something that hasn't been touched on quite as well as it needs to be, I think, is the following...

Sales aside - is it fair that someone gets something for free that someone else is paying for? I hate to even bring up what I have a feeling may get derided as moralistic or naive, but I think it's a valid concern.

I believe that continued piracy encourages an entitled attitude on the part of some of the pirates, and I can make lots and lots of points on why, often, a sense of entitlement in an individual often hurts society as a whole.

Actually, I was referring to any attempt to disect the moral or (supposed) economic ramifications behind piracy, but as per usual, you are an over-sensitive (or egomaniacal) pussy who takes everything personally. If you can't handle yourself like a normally adjusted adult, ignore my posts entirely or beg Sine to include (or point out) an "Ignore Poster" feature.

As for your last point, it boils down to *I'm jealous because they do it and I don't know how or don't want to*...which is a nice flimsy "moral" standpoint that destroys any credibilty; which is why I think no one brought it up.

PS - Save your "don't talk to me" rhetoric that I'm sure would've followed in absence of this postscript. I can seperate addressing the poster and addressing the topic. You however cannot - so re-read/examine my two previous paragraphs and learn a new skill.

I have to admit, you're a far more formidable troll than Seek.

Seek = Troll Lv. 8
Kali = Troll Lv. 30!

However, *I* am Troll-Ender Lv. 57, so you should stop now. You have no chance to survive; make your time!

I'll put some thought into dismantling your latest piece of asshattery later, but for now I have some work to be working on.

Actually, to elaborate on that last part:

"Is it fair that I have to pay when someone else does not?" really rests on a sense of unfairness (which yes, ultimately reflects jealousy - in the absence of personal or social barriers, one would prefer equal treatment ie. Free *unless we want to argue that crime could ever be a social impossiblity*).

There is a reason we aren't all rampant shoplifters, car jackers and bankrobbers. Social ramifications - be it prison, alienation, stress, etc. If there was an absence of deterrents, you'd be living in a society full of criminals. Right now, there are absolutely ZERO ramifications to personal pirating. Its a case where laws, tools and enforcement have not kept up with technology (for the record, I believe it will sooner than later).

The fact that it is getting easier (torrents, etc), faster (broadband) and cheaper (ISP+media recording) really just removes the only two real barriers that ever existed: cost and time/know-how.

Personally, and sure maybe I'm wrong, I believe 90%+ people who have a moral objection to piracy are really just full of it. In those cases, i'd bet that either:

- the interest in materials is not as intense (ie: not a junkie)
- the knowledge is limited (ie: cracking, burning, channels, etc)
- a (false) belief in personal consequences (virus, fines, etc)
- a lack of time to invest (it does take time)
- "purchasing" materials is more conveinent/pleasing (case+etc)
- etc

...rear their head before any concept of "awww, those poor faceless people losing business" reasoning comes up.

/shrug

-KO

Edit: *cough* Level 30 ELITE boss, which according to WoW means I'll tear through that cloth armor. ie: Send LFG tells in Daily Stuph before you come back.

Just because someone out there might be a model customer who also pirates stuff doesn't mean it's ok to pirate. Also it is more than likely that you're not the model the industry is looking for. If you think you're 'trying before you buy but I still buy stuff' at best you fall under the category of people the industry doesn't care about (because they care more for people who just buy stuff). Most likely you're someone the industry would sue if they've infinite resources to go after people, but since they do not they'll just pretend you don't exist as well and go after someone bigger.

The reason why the industry doesn't care you may have pirated $100k of stuff is because they don't even have the time to find all the guys who pirated $1000k of stuff. It is not because that somehow in this process of pirating you contributed more to the industry than you took away.

The fact that we don't have a society of criminals is a good thing. So are you saying people who don't pirate are jealous of criminals?

I fly solo, Kali...

And I roll d20 to cast <a href="http://www.questionablecontent.net/view ... =176">STFU N00b!</a>

Mental wrote:I fly solo, Kali...

And I roll d20 to cast <a href="http://www.questionablecontent.net/view ... =176">STFU N00b!</a>

Ah, I see you need to recruit backup outside the ToWS guild. No surprise...you are decked out with a level 57 character wearing nothing but Twill and no skills trained up. No match for me...obviously ebayed.

Sure, you could invest the time and farm the "intellectual gold" to move beyond your Smite Rank 1 and buy some gear off the AH...but by then you would have spent enough time in game to realize you were just a clueless noob before - attacking everything you could target because you thought you had to...and it turns out I was never an aggro mob to begin with.

As for you Don, for someone who types up such complex, LENGTHY posts, you get a D- in actual reading. Neither were my points...you twisted or misunderstood.

a) If you take my "hobby" out of the equation, I am their ideal customer. I buy the latest gear I can afford (LCD tv, PC and TV surround sound set up *+ seems like yearly reciever replacement*, Xbox/PS2 early adopter, stupidly high attach rate, DVD collector [for real? How many here have almost 200+ DVDs? Not many], build a new PC every 1.5 years, etc. I'm more of a poster child how piracy can benefit the industry (ie: feed the addiction)...all this arguing of the real economic consequences behind piracy is hypothetical and flismy at best.

b) Yes, in a way. When did I say it was a bad thing though. Do you prefer to pay for everything as opposed to getting everything for free, assuming no consequences? Don't be silly.

I'm going to jump in here and see if I can add anything to this discussion, mostly replying to what Kali has to say because I couldn't give half a crap about arguing about the economic ramifications of piracy.

Anyway, my point comes in regard to what Kali had to say about the lack of social ramifications to piracy, particularly this question:

Kali O. wrote:Do you prefer to pay for everything as opposed to getting everything for free, assuming no consequences?

This is an easily answerable question, of course, as evidenced by the "don't be silly" that followed it - however, it's also a flawed question.

The problem here is that the question posed does not address the true nature of media piracy - in that when someone pirates, they obtain the media in a way that differs from the way it was intended to be obtained by the producer of the media.

Thus, the pirate obtains the media without permission of the original producer, which, by definition, means that he STEALS the media. Stealing is not the same as "getting" something for free (which implies something freely given or offered). Stealing is <i>taking</i> something without knowledge or permission.

People can attempt to justify it in whatever way they wish, but piracy boils down to theft no matter which way you slice it.

Kali O. wrote:Right now, there are absolutely ZERO ramifications to personal pirating.

I disagree, and believe there is one - the self-knowledge a pirate has that they are a thief (possibly a non-consequential thief, but a thief nonetheless). At this time, there are no other consequences than that.

Personally, I don't like thinking of myself as a thief, so I don't pirate any more - and, to be honest, I'm vaguely ashamed of the Son May soundtracks I bought before I knew what they were, my HK bootleg GunBuster DVD (get an official release out, dammit!), my copies of the first eight tapes of Eva, the few ROMs I have (and rarely play), and the few old audio tape copies I have. (Not ashamed enough to get rid of them, hypocritically enough, but we're none of us perfect.)


Actually, now that I think about it, at this point this conversation is a lot like that scene in "City Slickers":

Ed: Let's pretend that a spaceship lands, and the most beautiful woman you've ever seen gets out of it. And the only thing she wants to do is have the greatest sex in the universe with you. And when it's over, she gets back in her spaceship and flies away forever. No one will never know.

Mitch: <i>I'd</i> know.

This thread is only here for my amusement now.

Well Agent, you'll forgive me if my post is "jumbled", haven't slept yet:

You are playing a little bit of a word game (perhaps my fault actually). Free, theft, stealing? The question remains the same...and so does the answer. If no one will stop you, no one will follow up with you...hell, no one will even look funny at you if you walk out with your groceries/a new TV/etc without paying, would you go pay instead? Of course not. That's the state of piracy at the moment.

The fact that you attach some sort of personal burden to an act of "thievery" probably - arguably - puts you in the minority (though I'd love to delve into your own reasons of why, outta curiousity). Regardless, people set their own random boundries of right and wrong...for some it's a dollar value or consequences or age or opinion of the "victim" or if they would otherwise purchase it or previous rights outweigh the wrong or religion/spirituality or circumstance or so on and so on. You yourself are applying (with the information you gave me) a sporactic situational moral standpoint. It was OK before but not now? Do you still have these items or have you been true to your own self-imposed guilt and disposed of them as proper?

Appreciating that human nature tends towards greed, and morality is as varied as snowflakes, I take the opinion arguing about the ethics of pirating intellectual property is as futile as trying to pin down the economic repricussions.

Pirated Constantine at release, saw it in theater with my sister, purchased the DVD.

I can't find the point I harmed anyone with my theft. That's my moral blanket. If yours is abstenence, so be it...we can both sleep at night, I just have more toys

"Your STFU N00b roll fails."

"Crap. Can I make a saving LOL?"

This thread is penalized ten yards for tangental retardery, loss of down.

It's a silly argument to say free is better than paying something if there is no consequence because there are always consequences. Even if there are no consequences (say we pass a law that abolished copyright), there will still be consequences in the sense that products will no longer be produced anymore so pretty soon I'll be getting nothing for nothing (this is assuming that goods cannot be produced for free).

So what are the consequences then? Please provide me with some solid factual evidence, since I'm 99% sure you are going to point to economic consequences - and I'm also 99% sure you'd have nothing solid to base it on besides assumption.

I'm not arguing that piracy is a good thing and shouldn't/won't change (but I think the industry needs to change)...believe it or not, this thread began with mentals self described rant that seemed to focus on his moral indignation at the excuses and intellectualization pirates throw around.

My point is, at least as far as I see it, its NOT hurting anybody (using my own real life habits/examples).

Between this post and the last, I "stole" a-ha's Take On Me video - TV Rip on a whim after re-watching last weeks Family Guy (also, "stolen"). Feel free to point out who was hurt along the way.

I think the TV "stealing" argument is also stupid, especially if they have commericials. Even if they didn't have commericials, I FFed through most of them because of my DVR. Does that mean I'm commiting piracy on my DVR, because TV is based on an ancient and outdated model solely hinging on its profit on commericials?

BTW, that Family Guy was awesome. I seriously think they had the same guy do that part for the episode that they did with the video.

kali o. wrote:If no one will stop you, no one will follow up with you...hell, no one will even look funny at you if you walk out with your groceries/a new TV/etc without paying, would you go pay instead? Of course not.

Kali, it seems to me that you're so convinced that your own viewpoint is the correct and <i>only possible</i> answer that you won't even consider that somebody could possibly have a differing viewpoint from yours.

Allow me to use the groceries example in the above quote - and for simplicity's sake, I'll limit this discussion to milk, as it's already been mentioned in this thread.

At any rate, in your hypothetical example: your point is that if you could go into a grocery store, pick a carton of milk up off the shelf, bring the milk home without paying for it and there were no punitive or social consequences whatsoever, you would do it in a heartbeat - because hey, you don't *have* to pay for it and no one else cares, so you won't.

If I were placed in the same situation, however, while I was standing in the aisle with the carton of milk in my hand, I would realize that I did not birth the cow, feed the cow, raise the cow, maintain the farm around the cow, milk the cow, package the milk, or ship it to the store - and thus would feel bad about obtaining the fruits of somebody else's labor while not compensating them for it or doing nothing myself to deserve it.

I am not trying to tell you that you're wrong here - your point of view is entirely logical - I'm just trying to point out that my own point of view is also valid and not to be dismissed out of hand.

kali o. wrote:The fact that you attach some sort of personal burden to an act of "thievery" probably - arguably - puts you in the minority (though I'd love to delve into your own reasons of why, outta curiousity).

I have no problem with being in the minority, and I outlined my reasons above - I respect the work that other people do in order to provide me with products, and believe that I should compensate them for their work if I experience it AND they expect to be compensated for it.

To elaborate, let me answer your "who did I hurt by d/ling TV episodes?" question. In most circumstances, the answer is "no one", because by broadcasting something on television, the suppliers of the product are essentially giving it away to anyone who has access to a television, and a recording of something freely given doesn't particularly bother me. (In addition, the original producers of the show have already been compensated by the TV stations, who have already been compensated by the advertisers, who are taking a gamble that they will be compensated by consumers buying their products.)

However, d/ling something that was broadcasted on cable, satellite, or PPV is a different story - in that the cable company expected to be compensated for providing the station in the first place and thus was not freely offered to anyone with TV access, so if somebody downloads the episode who does not have cable, satellite, or PPV access then they are depriving the provider of the show from the compensation they expected for doing the work of providing the show in the first place.

kali o. wrote:Regardless, people set their own random boundries of right and wrong...for some it's a dollar value or consequences or age or opinion of the "victim" or if they would otherwise purchase it or previous rights outweigh the wrong or religion/spirituality or circumstance or so on and so on.

Exactly. Your point about how the lack of punitive consequences is making piracy easier to justify is exactly right. All I'm trying to say here is that no matter what justification anyone uses, pirates are still obtaining the products of someone else's labor without compensating them for it, and they have to live with that knowledge (whether it bothers them or not). Whether or not it's right or wrong, whether the compensation is deserved or undeserved, or even whether the amount of compensation asked for is fair or unfair - all these things are immaterial from my point of view.

kali o. wrote:You yourself are applying (with the information you gave me) a sporadic situational moral standpoint. It was OK before but not now? Do you still have these items or have you been true to your own self-imposed guilt and disposed of them as proper?

I already answered this question in my first post, but as you were tired you must have skipped it. To repeat myself, the answer is no, and I have already acknowledged my hypocrisy in this matter. I guess I keep the stuff for two reasons: one, because I already have them, and hypocritically do not want to waste resources buying the same products again; and two, perhaps as a reminder to the mistakes I believe I made when I was younger, thus spurning me to continue to live my life with regards to media consumption as I see fit.

kali o. wrote:Appreciating that human nature tends towards greed, and morality is as varied as snowflakes, I take the opinion arguing about the ethics of pirating intellectual property is as futile as trying to pin down the economic repercussions.

Of course. It's very much a "to each his own" kind of scenario. As mentioned, I'm just trying to open your mind to acknowledge that a differing point of view is valid, even if you don't agree with it.

kali o. wrote:Pirated Constantine at release, saw it in theater with my sister, purchased the DVD.

I can't find the point I harmed anyone with my theft. That's my moral blanket. If yours is abstinence, so be it...we can both sleep at night, I just have more toys.

Hey, if you feel the ends justify the means, more power to you - that's your POV and you're entitled to it.