Piracy and Illegal Downloading

[Yodery]

Music, movies, games, books, and porn, oh my!

What do you think of piracy and illegal downloading? Should it be stopped? Will it never be stopped? Do you think paying a dollar for a song is borderline theft? Discuss!

 

[Battlecow]

I feel like we've had this discussion a lot before but--

People do it because it's convenient with no apparent victim and people have a hard time not doing easy, beneficial things even when they're "wrong" in an abstract way.

I imagine that if you put a bunch of nice designer clothes in a booth where anyone could easily walk in and take one without paying a similar percentage would steal. And people would still try to justify it.

People who pirate music don't irk me (if they did, virtually everyone would irk me) but people who won't stop justifying themselves or are actually self-righteous about it, as if it's their god-given right to have everything for free, do.

Musicians work hard, they create something nice, and then they try to sell it to you. The market should determine what price you're willing to pay. Unfortunately, it can't, because now you can steal their **** with consummate ease.

 

[John2k4]

deleted .

 

[Yodery]

Isn't it copying though, not so much stealing, since the original thing is still there?

 

[Ussi]

People don't get in trouble for doing it, even if it is wrong, so people are just gonna keep doing it until its easy to punish people for downloading illegally.

Way around it is giving products for free and asking for donations from the good willing people.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Jon Farron]

I only download a few bonus tracks for albums that I couldn't get without buying the album 3-4 times.

Like I'll buy a Target deluxe edition of an album, but it doesn't have the songs from the Standard deluxe, and then you find out there's another song on the iTunes deluxe edition. Super annoying.

However, people that download things for free "just cuz they can" make it worse for the people actually buying the game or CD by causing prices to go up, or developers not being able to put out better quality games because of a lack of funds.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Jon Farron]

But there's also the people that WOULD pay for it if they had to.

 

[John2k4]

deleted .

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I don't understand what the OP intends to achieve with this dialogue. Yodery what are you trying to achieve with this banal dialogue.

 

[Yodery]

World domination.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Pachinkosam]

I remember when the internet was getting popular downloading was so much easy. Now in days you visit that website you did 5 years and its blocked by the u.s goverment.

 

[Battlecow]

Strictly speaking, if the market (or at least a perfectly free market) were to determine the price you pay for their music, it would eventually be zero or close to zero. In this day and age, art has zero or close to zero marginal cost. Regardless, it's not stealing, as has been addressed over and over.

As for the topic question: you don't have a natural right to control over ideas after you've published them. Copyright was a means to an end (incentivizing the creation of artistic work), but it's demonstrably useless in that regard. So now people want to maintain their copyright, and they've shifted the argument from "our monopoly is for the greater good" to an argument about natural rights and entitlement, despite this right not even existing (being only a privilege provided by the government, invented in 1709 with the original intent of censorship) and this entitlement being a farce.

Once you've created a work of art and have decided to try to monetize it, you are an entrepreneur and are subject to the same rules as every other entrepreneur. You don't get to decide that, with this one enterprise, the government should step in and back you up.

The disconnect comes from this far fetched sense of entitlement. People create an idea and publish it, and then try to decide what other people do with that idea. My creating a work does not entitle me to restrict how others use it. The reason this absurd entitlement exists is largely because of corporations like the RIAA and MPAA who have convinced people that it's a matter of property rights (which it clearly is not).

I mean, in any reasonable definition of a free market there's no violence (and what I mean by that is that people cooperate and work within the given rules). Yes, the "free market" price of an album is $0, in the same sense that the price of a shirt is $0 if the store it's from has poor security.

Arguments about what copyright law was "originally for" are meaningless and frivolous. The law has been maintained to the present day because a majority of voters feel that it's morally correct to have such a law on the books.

I got a solid chuckle out of copyright law being "demonstrably useless" for incentivizing creative work. You can demonstrate to me that it's useless? Do so. Because I've met a number of talented individuals who are currently pursuing degrees in engineering instead of music because it's a dying industry.

I like the word "entitled" for this argument, and I'm gonna say that if working tirelessly to produce something and then trying to make sure that it isn't stolen is being entitled, then the entitlement of people who want to be able to steal art with moral impunity as well as without paying is truly staggering.

 

[Yodery]

wu-tang clan ain't nutin ta **** with.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Sucumbio]

[COLLAPSE="don't mine me"]I was so psycvhed when I found Orbital's website offered this huge library of free music.

NIN has a site where you can submit derivative works for feedback.

I love music these days, it's the best time for artists.

Bob Ostertag isn't saying CR is bad for musicians. He's saying it's bad to spend money when you don't have to and I agree.

But techncially according to CR once you record something it's "protected" (involved) which means it's kinda a must until it's not there anymore, and while it's a must - best register your work. No record label will touch you once you've done that, but whatever, that's the point. F record labels they suck, go independent all the way, I press my own CDs print my own jackets, the whole 9 even have a card swipe for live performance tickets or legendary Sucumbio tee-shirts >.>[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Battlecow]

No, it's in a completely different sense; the "free market" price of an album will approach the marginal cost of producing that album. In the case of digital production, that cost is zero or near-zero.

My bad.

Haha, you honestly think voters have had anything to do with copyright law? What, do you think Disney issued a poll before lobbying Congress in 1999? The law has been maintained because corporations lobby for them.

People didn't have a problem with it until it started coming into conflict with what was convenient for them

Oh no, some people you've met don't want to make music?!

Please at least try to act like an adult. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that... hilarious bit of sarcasm, but you're embarrassing yourself.

I have already provided links for why copyright does more harm than good. "Against Intellectual Monopoly" makes a good case for how intellectual monopolies result in a net economic loss. While I certainly feel for your friends going for a job in engineering instead of music, it's idiotic to think this is because of the dying industry. The overwhelming majority of independent musicians have always struggled to get by. This has nothing to do with piracy or copyright law.

Even if it did; even if you could prove that it's impossible to make a living as a musician because of piracy or without copright law (something that is pretty much completely horse****, since making it as a musician has always been extremely improbable, and the overwhelming majority of musicians have always made little-to-no money); you would still need to justify copyright law. You would still need to explain to me why it's ok to restrict the natural rights of the public for the monetary good of the few.

See, the mature thing to do would have been to back off of your point about being able to demonstrate that copyright law did not remove incentives towards creativity. Instead you obfuscate and backtrack without even acknowledging that you've abandoned your original point. The idea that the public has a "natural right" to the music and that that overrides the benefit of incentivizing creativity is interesting (it's the meat of the argument, really; bit sad that it took us this long to get there) and I'll address it as soon as you clearly and definitively acknowledge that that is in fact what we're arguing about and that you've abandoned this risible fantasy about wads of money not being an incentive to anyone because all artists are above the desire to make a living.

You can't reasonably believe copyright law is necessary to incentivize the creation of art. Copyright law began only four-hundred years ago. Art, however, has pretty much always been created. It's fine to think copyright incentivizes artistic creation, but it's silly to think it's for the greater good, and even sillier to think it's necessary.

People will always create art. We'll have better art if we give people a means by which to create art professionally. You can't reasonably believe otherwise.

The last time we had this argument I think the line that I won it with was "Right, dude, The Lord of the Rings would have been better had it been made with the trust funds of three chain-smoking young frenchmen." Movies are obviously different than music, but even if you want to narrow the discussion to music specifically, it's downright inane to even suggest that there will be no difference in quality between the music of a professional and the music of someone who writes and records in between the two other jobs he has to work to pay the rent. I can link you to songs by guys lamenting the fact that they have no way of making money off of the art that lots of people like if it's really necessary.

Nothing is being stolen; there is no analogy between ideas you've created and property you own. Ideas do not belong to anyone. Copyright does not magically grant you ownership of your ideas; it grants you a temporary (in this case, however long you live plus seventy years) monopoly that restricts the rights of others to share that work or create derivative works. If you're going to enter this discussion, at least familiarize yourself with the distinction between theft and copyright infringement.

Suggesting that because I use the word "theft" I'm unaware of the legal definition of copyright infringement betrays a truly subpar understanding of basic rhetoric. When one lawyer says "This gross theft of a father from his children" in a divorce proceeding, the other lawyer does not stand up and triumphantly declare that the opposing counsel is stupid for not knowing what theft is. It's a flexible word and can easily be applied to copyright infringement if you believe that this infringement constitutes an immoral acquisition of goods or ideas.

It's really annoying to me that I have to explain that to you. Maybe in the future read my posts twice before responding or something so that I don't have to re-cover the basics in every rebuttal.

The word "entitlement" works almost magically here. I explain that you aren't entitled to tell others what to do with an idea just because you created it, and your response is to shift the word on its head by mentioning property rights that don't apply and the irrelevance of how "tirelessly" you work? Cut me a ****ing break.

I mentioned the irrelevance of how tirelessly the artist worked? No I didn't. Proofreading, bro. This isn't the SRK debate hall, after all.

I think that most unbiased people would agree that, all sophistry aside, creating a song or movie gives you the right to control the distribution of it in whatever manner you see fit. You obviously disagree. There are a lot of people on both sides of this; it's hardly set in stone. Let's talk about it.

People act like copyright is in the interest of the artist. It's almost never in their best interest. In some cases, it at least works out for them (these are the hugely popular, fabulously rich artists). In most cases, the producers take the overwhelming majority of the profits from copyrights and the artist sees very little of it and usually winds up in debt.

Here Bob Ostertag explains why copyright law is not beneficial for most musicians.

Jim writes a song. It costs him money to record and so forth. Maybe he gets a record contract and puts it on itunes. You're telling me it benefits him if people steal the song instead of paying a buck for it (of which some amount goes to Jim?) The idea's ridiculous, and only someone with a pre-existent desire to get **** for free would even try to dream it up.

Critical to Ostertag's argument as well is the idea that music should cost nothing to produce. It's fine if you like grungy low-quality music or something cobbled together on a macbook or whatever, but there's other music out there.

Again, I can show you examples of pretty non-famous musicians begging people to pay them for songs because they're poor. I kind of don't want my taste in music critiqued but if you truly believe that poor musicians are somehow averse to being paid money for what they create I'll link you.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Muhti]

Question:

If Apple only approves its apps and it doesn't let apps just get out there, then why did they approve an application which allows you to get free music from it?

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Muhti]

There are a couple. Here are three of them:

The two are the ones on the left. Another on the top/last. And I own another app that works perfectly fine and plays my music nicely.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Kal what do you believe in again? I know you are against current copyright laws, but I don't know what you believe should be amended or abolished.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[FirestormNeos]

It should be fixed, but not if it cripples the item in question...

SIMCITY...

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[FirestormNeos]

wu-tang clan ain't nutin ta **** with.

Oh, so that T-shirt I saw today when I went to target was from a band I've never heard of...

Haha, you honestly think voters have had anything to do with copyright law? What, do you think Disney issued a poll before lobbying Congress in 1999? The law has been maintained because corporations lobby for them.

I thought copyright laws existed before 1999. Maybe I was wrong.

People act like copyright is in the interest of the artist. It's almost never in their best interest. In some cases, it at least works out for them (these are the hugely popular, fabulously rich artists). In most cases, the producers take the overwhelming majority of the profits from copyrights and the artist sees very little of it and usually winds up in debt.

That moment you realize Mozart lived in a world without copyright laws or piracy is a fascinating moment indeed.

World domination.

 

[Oracle_Summon]

I know this is an old thread, but here it goes:

The reason I'm against piracy is because doing so simply marches the "little guys" who work long hours on the game itself toward the unemployment line.

Make no mistake, your piracy doesn't strike a blow against "the man" or show the industry that you're not willing to put up with DRM.

All it does is make executives look at the bottom line (that's money) and then fire people if sales are low and implement crazy DRM to try and stop said piracy.

In short, you may think you're Robin Hood, but you're not. If you were, you'd be stealing money from rich executives and handing it over to the designers, who've spent countless hours working on the games themselves.

DeadPool X from Cracked.com

Just something I figured should be thrown out there, I don't really care to get in the Debate Hall (I didn't even work for it) I just think this should be thrown out there.

More good points, this time by JGuy13 from Cracked.com:

"You're right. It doesn't directly effect the studios.
But it effects the people who ACTUALLY make the games, the animators, the designers, the voice actors, every person you rarely hear about that puts part of themselves into the video game you think you deserve for free gets boned when pirating shows up in even one blip on the developers screen, because corporations are nothing but paranoid. If they think they are about to lose money, they start taking short cuts, laying off the more well paid and seasoned employees to hire new, young, and cheap workers, or not even fill that new empty slot and just heap that extra load on everyone else while simultaneously cutting their pay checks.

But sure, refuse to pay for that video game, stick it to the man."

 

[LarsINTJ]

I am under the impression that most people who download pirated copies of games are mid-late teens whom have yet to earn their own income. They're probably using computers they didn't pay for too, hence the recklessness.

Just an assumption.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

When it comes to video games, movies, songs, and the like, I do not care. The Internet is a source of free ideas and capabilities. It is an intangible archive of everything. I myself download emulators of GBA games, as well as N64 games.

But it when it comes to controversial things, like pornography of those under the age of consent, then that should be cut down.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

When it comes to video games, movies, songs, and the like, I do not care. The Internet is a source of free ideas and capabilities. It is an intangible archive of everything. I myself download emulators of GBA games, as well as N64 games. But it when it comes to controversial things, like pornography of those under the age of consent, then that should be cut down.

So it's a personal thing. You find pornography controversial and don't like the idea of stealing it, so the government should expend resources to cut that down. However, massive pirating of video games and emulators should be given a blind eye because you happen to enjoy regularly pirating those files without being conflicted about it.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

So it's a personal thing. You find pornography controversial and don't like the idea of stealing it, so the government should expend resources to cut that down. However, massive pirating of video games and emulators should be given a blind eye because you happen to enjoy regularly pirating those files without being conflicted about it.

You are twisting my words, and like someone who is trigger happy, you are jumping to conclusions and you judge without asking for clarification.

Notice how in my post I never mention "stealing." Not once.

I never said pornography was controversial. Again, another unproven judgmental accusation.

If you had asked for clarification, I would gladly explain it for you.

I do not care about pornography between two consulting adults. But, for instance, child pornography is something that exploits a non-consenting, minor participant, and that is the only thing government should prevent by finding these people.

Ask before you judge, sir.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

You are twisting my words, and like someone who is trigger happy, you are jumping to conclusions and you judge without asking for clarification. Notice how in my post I never mention "stealing." Not once. I never said pornography was controversial. Again, another unproven judgmental accusation. If you had asked for clarification, I would gladly explain it for you. I do not care about pornography between two consulting adults. But, for instance, child pornography is something that exploits a non-consenting, minor participant, and that is the only thing government should prevent by finding these people. Ask before you judge, sir.

So the government should cut down only on child pornography.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

So the government should cut down only on child pornography.

Yeah.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Yeah.

And your reasoning is because... you don't look at child pornography but you dabble in videogames. So it's a convenient restriction since you won't be inhibited and you're omitting something you dislike at the same time.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

And your reasoning is because... you don't look at child pornography but you dabble in videogames. So it's a convenient restriction since you won't be inhibited and you're omitting something you dislike at the same time.

Why is this so complicated...

Let me ask you this, who is being harmed when people download video games on an emulator? Especially games that are no longer in production?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Why is this so complicated... Let me ask you this, who is being harmed when people download video games on an emulator? Especially games that are no longer in production?

Retailer and producers.