Illegally Downloading

[BSP]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ly-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars

An article that states an opinion on calculating the amount of money lost due to piracy. It is claimed, "difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts."

So, considering the difficulty of figuring out exactly how much money tthe music industry loses to piracy, it probably is irrelevant to this debate at hand.

Piracy is going to keep happening, and there really isn't much we can do about it. A possible concern is that growing piracy may hurt the music business. Does anyone think this is a concern that needs to be addressed now?

I don't think it's a major problem at the moment, but if the amount of piracy increases to a level where the music industry goes critical, and can barely function, then we should attempt to do something to stop it.

 

[Cyn]

Like I stated, stealing is still stealing. Say I work at a record store, and there is a record that has sat on the shelf for over a year, and I decide to five finger the album . Even if no one is buying it, wouldn't you still say I'd be stealing? It didn't seem like it mattered because no one was going to buy it anyways. But that doesn't mean that someone might have bought it eventually. People that download illegally might have eventually bought the song if there wasn't a way to obtain it illegally.

It's the "might have" that the music industry worries about. When someone downloads illegally, the "might have" gets taken away from them, and they lose all chances of that person buying the music.

 

[Deleted member]

the analogy goes wrong because it is implied that there is only one album.
with digital copies this obviously does work.

Some people also attend concerts after hearing a band on an illegally obtained album, and some people actually buy the real album after liking the downloaded version (this happens more with video games than with music, but for the sake of easy reading let's just say music).

as stated multiple times, this should be a debate on the moral side, not how much "the company" loses.

 

[BSP]

Like I stated, stealing is still stealing. Say I work at a record store, and there is a record that has sat on the shelf for over a year, and I decide to five finger the album . Even if no one is buying it, wouldn't you still say I'd be stealing? It didn't seem like it mattered because no one was going to buy it anyways. But that doesn't mean that someone might have bought it eventually. People that download illegally might have eventually bought the song if there wasn't a way to obtain it illegally.

It's the "might have" that the music industry worries about. When someone downloads illegally, the "might have" gets taken away from them, and they lose all chances of that person buying the music.

I can't really see why you quoted me, but I agree with your point. Piracy is stealing, no doubt. Morally, it's still wrong, but sometimes, desire will overpower your moral thinking, or you may not care if it's stealing or not. For whatever the reason, you illegally downloaded the [item]. So, I guess that if you can handle the possible guilt, if you feel any that is, you will have after you do the deed, and are ok with breaking the law, you'll do it. Morally, it's still wrong though.

 

[Cyn]

Fixed. Sorry I misread something you wrote.

I don't think there is much of a debate on the moral side, unless someone thinks stealing is morally acceptable.

 

[Lore]

the analogy goes wrong because it is implied that there is only one album.
with digital copies this obviously does work.

^This. Why do people keep coming back to it? I really wish that people would read the thread; this has been stated several times. Here's an example:

This example, although it appears to relate to the discussion, really doesn't. Drinking one can of soda out of a six pack removes a physical object, and piracy copies something that already exists without any direct consequence to the owner. They may both be illegal, but the soda no longer exists after the "deed is done" while the song still does.

I don't think there is much of a debate on the moral side, unless someone thinks stealing is morally acceptable.

There really isn't much of a debate anyway. Any estimates of how much piracy is damaging the industry is pure speculation, stealing is generally considered wrong whether it is a physical thing or not (besides that, morals are pure opinion anyway), and there's no way to prove that the artists are directly hurt by it.

Honestly, the only "debate" that was in this topic was what counts as a lost sale. This thread has just devolved into circular arguments, repetition of old material and ideas, and people misreading what people post.

 

[Dre89]

It's depressing how many relativists there are today.

 

[Cyn]

It's going in circles because people that are pro-downloading are trying to justify it. I'm not only trying to say what constitutes a lost sale. It doesn't, or rather shouldn't matter if something is physically taken; what matters is that it was meant to be paid for, and is not.

 

[Lore]

It doesn't, or rather shouldn't matter if something is physically taken;

Yes, you're partially right. The physical bit only matters because people keep comparing stealing something that no longer exists after you steal it and stealing infinitely copyable digital media.

what matters is that it was meant to be paid for, and is not.

What if it wasn't meant to be paid for? What if I never intended to buy an album in the first place and decided to download a song that I kinda-sorta liked from the album? Due to the copyable nature of digital media, if I never intended to buy something in the first place, I can download it without any damage to the artist/record company.

Unfortunately, there is no way for the copyright groups to tell what was intended to be bought or not.

Any arguments about "damaging the artist" should just stop. Artist barely make money off their albums anyway because:

Unfortunately, a record company's policies hurt up and coming artists more than pirating.

When an artist signs a record deal, the company basically agrees to publish the album and pay for all expenses, but the artist has to pay them back with the money that they earn with the album.

Have you ever wondered why t-shirts are so expensive at concerts? Merchandise is one of the few ways that bands can make money while under a recording contract. In other words, one shirt sale usually equals one meal for the band. Even if I don't buy the album, I still try to support bands that way.

Artists usually get most of their personal revenue from concerts, etc.

 

[Cyn]

What if it wasn't meant to be paid for? What if I never intended to buy an album in the first place and decided to download a song that I kinda-sorta liked from the album? Due to the copyable nature of digital media, if I never intended to buy something in the first place, I can download it without any damage to the artist/record company.

Are you implying that the songs were meant to be free? I don't think artists or record labels or whomever puts music out unless they think they will earn something off of it. Even if you never intended to buy it in the first place doesn't mean it isn't for sale.

 

[Lore]

Are you implying that the songs were meant to be free? I don't think artists or record labels or whomever puts music out unless they think they will earn something off of it. Even if you never intended to buy it in the first place doesn't mean it isn't for sale.

No, I wasn't.

If I never intended to give money for something in the first place, then that should not count as lost money for a company. It would have never gotten any money whether I downloaded it or not, and because digital media is infinitely copyable, I can do it without any damage at all to the company.

Read the rest of the thread, we've discussed this at length.

By the way, I still think that piracy is morally wrong, but I'm one of the few people who do the "try and buy" method.

 

[Cyn]

No, I wasn't.

If I never intended to give money for something in the first place, then that should not count as lost money for a company. It would have never gotten any money whether I downloaded it or not, and because digital media is infinitely copyable, I can do it without any damage at all to the company.

Read the rest of the thread, we've discussed this at length.

By the way, I still think that piracy is morally wrong, but I'm one of the few people who do the "try and buy" method.

It doesn't matter whether you never intended to buy it; what matters is that it was meant to be bought, not copied.

 

[Crimson King]

It IS bogus to claim that piracy costs $xxxxxxxxxx and place some value. It's also ridiculous to not acknowledge that piracy does cost people money.

Sticking with music, I can see a real situation where artists quit instead of producing since most of their stuff is being pirated (add source for band that did just that). By pushing and bullying these artists into something they don't want to be apart of, you are forcing ill-prepared people to do something that requires more of them.

As a capitalist, I say leave the industry alone. If you like the way a product/service works versus the antequated model USE the new one. But downloading songs and albums from artists who choose not to adapt is just increasing this ridiculous sense of entitlement. What would happen of musicians realized that producing wasn't worth it?

 

[Sieguest]

It's depressing how many relativists there are today.

Is that all you have to say? That's exactly the form of mentality racist people (and other extremely biased people) have. Your statement right here makes me question whether it's even worth to argue something of morality with you since it seems from this that it is below you to acknowledge relativists.

Your statement is one of my greatest pet peeves. My apologies for derailing the topic.

 

[Dre89]

It's not about me being narrow-minded, I'm one of the few people here who actually praises good arguments that oppose mine (such as some of yours), and admit when I have been defeated in a debate, despite the fact I still disagree with their position.

What depresses me about it is the fact that 90% of relativists don't have good reasons to be relativists, they're just like that because their culture is pushing them towards it, based on a lack of meta-ethical understanding of morality.

I admit it was a pointless comment, I was probably just frustrated at how many people make claims as if they are object fact without having any justification behind it.

It was wrong of me and I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[Sieguest]

I see. I guess we all have those moments don't we? All is well.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Man, I feel bad coming into this thread after reading all 20 pages of AltF4's thread just yesterday.

It's stealing, right?

<3

Some say it's beneficial for music artists. You download something, show it to everyone, and people are wanting to buy it. More beneficial than harmful?

What if it isn't? What if you are taking money away? Then you're harming a family. The artist can't feed their family. Why? Because of you.

WRONG. They don't have food because they can't adapt to a new piece of technology. Remember the vaudeville artists who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the phonogram? Or the LP guys who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the radio? Or the ice vendors who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the common freezer? Do you share a shred of sympathy for them? Of course not. They refused to adapt to new technology and went out of business.

The only thing that piracy really changes is the supply and demand model-it is a tricky question of how to make money with limited demand when there is infinite demand. But it's still possible, and besides-how much money do good musicians make with record contracts anyways?

http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/

I tried googling for a better statistic (and failed horribly), but I think it's fair to assume that good musicians will be able to make money with shows, t-shirt sales, endorsements, et cetera.

I don't quite agree with this. If someone downloads something they never intended to buy, then they still come into possession of a unit they have not paid for which equals the loss of one unit of sale for the artist.

And while some people may go out and buy the CDs to support the office, there are still others who will just download more of the songs without paying a dime.

But would they have bought it otherwise? If they wouldn't have, then there is no reason that they shouldn't have pirated it in the first place. In fact, if they would not have bought it, it not only doesn't harm the originator in any way, it can in fact help them (if they spread the word). The owner loses NOTHING unless it's by necessity a 0-sum system (which it would be if the person was, say, shoplifting instead of copying).

 

[Crimson King]

Just because you can replicate something with ease doesn't make it worth less. That's like saying every car shouldn't cost as much as the first one because it's easy to replicate (relatively).

Fact is a lot still goes into production of that one song, and if you were an artist, created what you considered your masterpiece, and found out people were "sharing it" with all their friends, you'd be pissed. You would want everyone who is enjoying it to pay SOMETHING at least. But with the way it works now, many just see "free stuff," then critique what's there and usually don't buy. You can see a lot of people just not buying and admitting to it.

It's a travesty.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just because you can replicate something with ease doesn't make it worth less. That's like saying every car shouldn't cost as much as the first one because it's easy to replicate (relatively).

Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't say worthless! Where did I say it was worthless? Where did I even imply that the item did not have worth?

Fact is a lot still goes into production of that one song, and if you were an artist, created what you considered your masterpiece, and found out people were "sharing it" with all their friends, you'd be pissed. You would want everyone who is enjoying it to pay SOMETHING at least. But with the way it works now, many just see "free stuff," then critique what's there and usually don't buy. You can see a lot of people just not buying and admitting to it.

It's a travesty.

This is, of course, taking away the assumption that the only functional business model is the one where the artist gets payed for selling copies of his songs. Again, the artist can make money in other ways-commissions, concert tickets (most obviously way), t-shirts, endorsements. The whole "get payed for an individual song" thing is a business model which would have faded long ago if it wasn't for the copyright laws.

 

[Sieguest]

But would they have bought it otherwise? If they wouldn't have, then there is no reason that they shouldn't have pirated it in the first place. In fact, if they would not have bought it, it not only doesn't harm the originator in any way, it can in fact help them (if they spread the word). The owner loses NOTHING unless it's by necessity a 0-sum system (which it would be if the person was, say, shoplifting instead of copying).

Read further into the thread and you'll see what I mean, someone all ready said this. I provided a breakdown of it.

Anyway, I've read this thread again and thought about it some.
If you want to come into possession of something then you buy it or pirate it. One gives money where it's do, the other gives no money, less money for the producer to whom justly deserves said cash. It is therefore stealing, inadvertently yes, but stealing all the same.

Saying "they never intended to buy it" but they end up pirating it is contradictory. The intent of buying something is to come into possession of something, so to say that you don't intend on buying it is saying that you don't intend on coming into possession of it. Then turning around and pirating it is going directly against it.

To be truly correct in wording that phrase would be "I don't want to spend money so I'll just steal it."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Read further into the thread and you'll see what I mean, someone all ready said this. I provided a breakdown of it.

I did read the thread... I'll read it again then. Musta missed something

Anyway, I've read this thread again and thought about it some.
If you want to come into possession of something then you buy it or pirate it. One gives money where it's do, the other gives no money, less money for the producer to whom justly deserves said cash. It is therefore stealing, inadvertently yes, but stealing all the same.

No it is not! You MIGHT be depriving him of the income he might have gotten if you had decided to buy it. You can't honestly equate someone like me who lives in rather poor conditions (couldn't have bought it anyways) pirating a copy of adobe CS4 master collection which I didn't really need but prefered to have in case I wanted it at some point to someone who walks into an electronics store and steals the program off the shelf. I did not need the program, I use it maybe once a month for things MSPaint could probably do, and all I've done is cost myself and whoever seeded a lot of bandwidth (around 14g or so?), whereas the shoplifter cost the local Best Buy around $1500, plus another $1500 if he was the kind of person who really needed the program. You cannot equate piracy to theft. See my graph again.

I'm not saying it doesn't cost sales or anything like that, or that it has no price for the industry. However, equating it to theft is like equating singing "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" in your bathroom to copyright infringement.

Saying "they never intended to buy it" but they end up pirating it is contradictory. The intent of buying something is to come into possession of something, so to say that you don't intend on buying it is saying that you don't intend on coming into possession of it. Then turning around and pirating it is going directly against it.

To be truly correct in wording that phrase would be "I don't want to spend money so I'll just steal it."

Hmm... So I bought that firefox I just downloaded? I really think there's more to the intent of buying than coming into possession for something. Because if that's all there really is to it, theft is purchase. There is definitely more to it. Factors can stop someone from buying something they want-things like price, difficulty to find legally (see example: earthbound/2/3), budget being low, not being able to pay in the specific manner wanted (imagine you're in the middle of nowhere and don't have paypal or online banking), or lack of need (I almost never use photoshop). I would not have purchased the item because of these reasons, but I sure would have pirated them.

And it's not always "I don't want to spend money", it's often "I don't have spending money".

 

[blazedaces]

If you want to come into possession of something then you buy it or pirate it.

Guest, please look up the logical fallacy of "black and white"... it's rhetoric often used to dumb down an issue and ignore all the facts by summing it to "it's either THIS... OR ITS THAT"...

The world is not black and white... and you can come into possession of things plenty of ways besides buying or pirating it... how about borrowing? Or building? Or designing? Or creating? Or Writing? Or Constructing? ... Etc.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

WRONG. They don't have food because they can't adapt to a new piece of technology. Remember the vaudeville artists who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the phonogram? Or the LP guys who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the radio? Or the ice vendors who went out of business because they refused to adapt to the common freezer? Do you share a shred of sympathy for them? Of course not. They refused to adapt to new technology and went out of business.

The big difference with your freezer analogy is that in it's current state the pirating technology isn't a profitable thing for anyone. How will the music industry's adaptation to piaracy look like?

Itunes or anything liek that would be an incorrect answer since those things will not take over the "free piracy" market.

You can't demand adaptation from someone if you don't present what such an adaptation would look like.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well, let's see here...

-Music: Easy, artists go back to the roots. Musicians made money before the invention of recorded music and they can pull it off again-even easier now, due to online networking, the lack of parasitic record deals, fast travel from place to place, et cetera. An easy business model that several are adapting. I mean, look at this! Or this. Both are basically giving away their music, or at least samples of it. Radiohead gave away their last album AFAIK. NIN did something similar. It can work, and it makes it easier for lots of small bands to pop up and use the system (as opposed to the old system, where a lot of bands got snubbed by record companies).

-Film/TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q&feature=related. Not sure how effective this would be, but films already make a lot of money with product placement.

-Gaming: This is a little more tricky. But (god I am ripping off AltF4 here; he pretty much said anything that ever needs to be said about the topic ever) one of the more common concepts would be the same thing as with music-turn it from a product-based system into a service-based system. That is, more server-side adaptions and periodic fees. I'm sure there are other options as well, but it's very hard to make sure that a game gets paid for if you don't want to make it heavily server-based or apply very irritating DRMs (which alienate customers because you are treating them like thieves).

As far as music goes, the system swap is ridiculously easy and I would honestly remove anti-piracy laws for music mostly because its time for them to adapt to this new system of infinite supply of product. Film/TV and Gaming... a little more tricky. It's not really possible to open those up too too much without needing to worsen the experience for everyone involved at least slightly; or at least, I can't come up with good ways. Gaming is very, very tricky-even with things like server-side checks or a server-based game, you'll have things like private servers or cracked versions.

However, my above statement regarding to the musicians adapting was specific to music-I don't know how to make piracy work for games or tv, so I'll stick to doing what I hold to be morally wrong because it works well for me. :V

 

[Sieguest]

Guest, please look up the logical fallacy of "black and white"... it's rhetoric often used to dumb down an issue and ignore all the facts by summing it to "it's either THIS... OR ITS THAT"...

The world is not black and white... and you can come into possession of things plenty of ways besides buying or pirating it... how about borrowing? Or building? Or designing? Or creating? Or Writing? Or Constructing? ... Etc.

-blazed

Okay, I had a lapse in logic, but even with that, considering the idea the topic is surrounding:
Piracy

The other methods you mentioned such as creating, building, designing, writing, or constructing, all mean that the person who comes into possession of it did so by their own work. Someone is entitled to their own property are they not?

As to borrowing, in the past it wasn't so big of a deal, but in today's time with the ability to burn CDs and the like, borrowing becomes just as damaging to the industry as piracy. Someone who has paid nothing whatsoever has come into possession of something that they should have paid for. If you ask me, that's not really fair to the person who paid money to get the product nor to the person who put precious time and effort into their work to try and make as much money as they can.

No it is not! You MIGHT be depriving him of the income he might have gotten if you had decided to buy it. You can't honestly equate someone like me who lives in rather poor conditions (couldn't have bought it anyways) pirating a copy of adobe CS4 master collection which I didn't really need but prefered to have in case I wanted it at some point to someone who walks into an electronics store and steals the program off the shelf. I did not need the program, I use it maybe once a month for things MSPaint could probably do, and all I've done is cost myself and whoever seeded a lot of bandwidth (around 14g or so?), whereas the shoplifter cost the local Best Buy around $1500, plus another $1500 if he was the kind of person who really needed the program. You cannot equate piracy to theft. See my graph again.

Actually, I think I could.
Considering Adobe CS4 Master Collection costs $1500 retail

You pirate it
You now have something that is worth $1500 to be paid to the producer in exchange for getting the product, but you haven't paid anything to the producer. That producer is now short $1500 owed to him. He might not know it, but the difference still exists.

As to someone who walks into Best Buy and takes it off the shelf.
That person now has something that is worth $1500 to be paid to the producer in exchange for getting the product, but they haven't paid anything to the producer. The producer is now short $1500 owed to him. The producer may know it and the difference is there.

Same thing (purpose wise), different method. Stealing off of the shelf is just more conspicuous than downloading from the internet.

Regardless the use, the point is that someone has a product that is worth something to be owed to the producer and that someone has not paid anything to the producer for coming into possession of the product.
I don't have the money to buy Adobe CS4 Master Collection either, but I haven't pirated it. Is it fair that you or I not pay for something that other people pay their money for, and that the producer has poured time and money into?

In reference to your graph, my answer is the same.

I'm not saying it doesn't cost sales or anything like that, or that it has no price for the industry. However, equating it to theft is like equating singing "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" in your bathroom to copyright infringement.

I equate it to theft in purpose and end result. By process, probably not.

I guess in flat terms these are the questions I've asked myself to determine this.

Is the product on retail to be purchased?
Did I come into possession of the product?
Did I pay for the product?
Am I entitled to the product?

Hmm... So I bought that firefox I just downloaded? I really think there's more to the intent of buying than coming into possession for something. Because if that's all there really is to it, theft is purchase. There is definitely more to it. Factors can stop someone from buying something they want-things like price, difficulty to find legally (see example: earthbound/2/3), budget being low, not being able to pay in the specific manner wanted (imagine you're in the middle of nowhere and don't have paypal or online banking), or lack of need (I almost never use photoshop). I would not have purchased the item because of these reasons, but I sure would have pirated them.

Why buy it if you didn't want it?
Also, firefox is a horrible example. Firefox isn't on retail. It's meant to be downloaded freely, and there is no price tag on it. Things such as adobe DO have a price on them, and are not open to be freely downloaded.

As for the part in red: So just because you can't get it legally, you're automatically entitled to get it illegally and not expect to be held accountable for infringing on the property of the producer?

And it's not always "I don't want to spend money", it's often "I don't have spending money".

And so "I don't have the spending money so it is all right for me to get it without paying." Despite the fact that many others DO pay for it and the producer EXPECTS to be paid for it. It's that mentality that puts producers of music and software out of business.

Edit: Bah I've jumped into morality. As far as I'm concerned I can't tell you that piracy is "wrong" like it's a fact. I guess to keep it on a more objective level I'm saying that piracy is a threat to industry and because that it shoudn't be practiced or allowed.

 

[BSP]

Edit: Bah I've jumped into morality. As far as I'm concerned I can't tell you that piracy is "wrong" like it's a fact. I guess to keep it on a more objective level I'm saying that piracy is a threat to industry and because that it shoudn't be practiced or allowed.

Why not?

If a person pirates someone else's property, that they've put out for sale, it's stealing right? I'm sure most people would agree that stealing is wrong.

But if you're trying to stay out of the moral side, then nevermind.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, let's see here...

-Music: Easy, artists go back to the roots. Musicians made money before the invention of recorded music and they can pull it off again-even easier now, due to online networking, the lack of parasitic record deals, fast travel from place to place, et cetera. An easy business model that several are adapting. I mean, look at this! Or this. Both are basically giving away their music, or at least samples of it. Radiohead gave away their last album AFAIK. NIN did something similar. It can work, and it makes it easier for lots of small bands to pop up and use the system (as opposed to the old system, where a lot of bands got snubbed by record companies).

You listed 3 bands all of which are established and the latter two are definitely millionaires from their work. The major point you are ignoring is what record companies do for the people they sign.

Record companies aren't just evil conglomerates that try to take a product and toss it to the wolves, taking whatever they can for profit and leaving you with scraps. If you think that, then stop any arguing on music production.

Record companies record a song, spend HOURS upon HOURS in the record studio perfecting that sound (most agents work in conjunction with recording engineers). Then, they market the hell out of an album, which includes getting radio play, getting TV spots, getting movie deals, etc. Essentially, they work extremely hard just to get the song out there.

Furthermore, record companies understand trends. When someone becomes a hit, record companies are quick to sign and manufacture variations on this act that the market demands. Case in point: Ke$ha. She cannot sing at all, but with the aid of AutoTune and lyrics that make Nick Nolte seem coherent, she fits into the niché that was created with Lady Gaga going massive.

The point is saying "bands get snubbed by record companies" is an oversight. The band got snubbed because either their sound is untested and unproven OR their sound is against what the market is indulging in. As a business, if the market is not purchasing something, then there is no point to produce. Indie labels work well with this notion (sell to the niché).

I should point out I am in favor of innovative marketing and establishing adapted trends. What I opposed is the notion that we should force the market to evolve. That force creates instability. The anti-copyright movement is all about killing the current model, but the problem is in doing so many artists who are unconcerned with doing all the work their former record company did are left to die. Instead of forcing the market to change via the notion that you should take whatever you want for free, I support alternative avenues. For The Humble Bundle, I paid $40, when the average was closer to $14 (for Linux users). Of course, despite the fact that you could pay as low as $0.01 for 5 amazing INDIE games (later, a sixth was given), and you could even set 100% of your money going to a charity, people still pirated the Humble Bundle.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, I think I could.
Considering Adobe CS4 Master Collection costs $1500 retail

You pirate it
You now have something that is worth $1500 to be paid to the producer in exchange for getting the product, but you haven't paid anything to the producer. That producer is now short $1500 owed to him. He might not know it, but the difference still exists.

As to someone who walks into Best Buy and takes it off the shelf.
That person now has something that is worth $1500 to be paid to the producer in exchange for getting the product, but they haven't paid anything to the producer. The producer is now short $1500 owed to him. The producer may know it and the difference is there.

Yeah. The difference lies therein who the victim is. In the latter case, the victim is clearly best buy-they lost product, they can't sell it any more. They not only lost the product (1500) but also the money they could earn from it (1500 again). In the former case, assuming the downloader did not have the intent to buy it before learning that he could get it for free, who is the victim? It's a victimless crime. He didn't even really lose the money, because if I couldn't have pirated it, he would not have seen a penny from me anyways! And it's not a physical object either; it's data, easily copied in a few minutes.

Regardless the use, the point is that someone has a product that is worth something to be owed to the producer and that someone has not paid anything to the producer for coming into possession of the product.
I don't have the money to buy Adobe CS4 Master Collection either, but I haven't pirated it. Is it fair that you or I not pay for something that other people pay their money for, and that the producer has poured time and money into?

In reference to your graph, my answer is the same.

Well, seeing as you've decided to limit yourself (scrub logic ftw), then yes-it is fair, I worked a little harder, given up a good bit of bandwidth, and was able to look above my moral limits, you weren't. Therefore I deserve it and you don't.

I equate it to theft in purpose and end result. By process, probably not.

I guess in flat terms these are the questions I've asked myself to determine this.

Is the product on retail to be purchased?
Did I come into possession of the product?
Did I pay for the product?
Am I entitled to the product?

Purpose: attain a certain string of data/piece of software/music/etc. Can be equated to: Buying, Hacking, downloading free software, and writing your own software.
End result: you have the object in question without paying for it. Can be equated to: All of the above minus buying. Just pointing out this hole in that logic.

Why buy it if you didn't want it?
Also, firefox is a horrible example. Firefox isn't on retail. It's meant to be downloaded freely, and there is no price tag on it. Things such as adobe DO have a price on them, and are not open to be freely downloaded.

As for the part in red: So just because you can't get it legally, you're automatically entitled to get it illegally and not expect to be held accountable for infringing on the property of the producer?

In the case of a product with infinite supply? Yes, I'd say I am. Again, if I would not have been able to buy it in the first place, it is a victimless crime. The only result is that I am richer. Nobody becomes poorer or less well off.

And so "I don't have the spending money so it is all right for me to get it without paying." Despite the fact that many others DO pay for it and the producer EXPECTS to be paid for it. It's that mentality that puts producers of music and software out of business.

Edit: Bah I've jumped into morality. As far as I'm concerned I can't tell you that piracy is "wrong" like it's a fact. I guess to keep it on a more objective level I'm saying that piracy is a threat to industry and because that it shoudn't be practiced or allowed.

All right, this I'll give you-the "I can't afford it so I'll pirate it" argument is, morally, a little weak. But I still hold to my principles that if it is a victimless crime, where the only result is that I get richer and nobody else gets poorer, then I feel completely justified doing so, laws be ****ed (in fact, I make it a point to break rules/laws that I find anywhere on the scale between "unjustified" and "total bull****").

Also, Piracy is a threat to the industry in the same way that TV was a threat to the cinema, radio was a threat to the recorded music industry, and LPs were a threat to Vaudeville-a threat that you adapt to or die out. I mentioned this above, and I also mentioned ways for it to adapt feasibly.

You listed 3 bands all of which are established and the latter two are definitely millionaires from their work. The major point you are ignoring is what record companies do for the people they sign.

Record companies aren't just evil conglomerates that try to take a product and toss it to the wolves, taking whatever they can for profit and leaving you with scraps. If you think that, then stop any arguing on music production.

I'm not convinced that you couldn't apply this model to smaller bands. See my example below.

Record companies record a song, spend HOURS upon HOURS in the record studio perfecting that sound (most agents work in conjunction with recording engineers). Then, they market the hell out of an album, which includes getting radio play, getting TV spots, getting movie deals, etc. Essentially, they work extremely hard just to get the song out there.

Now replace radio play with LastFM/Pandora/Myspace Music, TV spots with successful social networking, and movie deals with... Wait, movie deals? Do you mean things like Back In Black playing near the beginning of Iron Man? Replace that with movie people either making more of their own music or the movie moguls having a much larger spectrum to choose from. More likely the former, I suppose-a loss for the industry? The former two points, however, seem like they could be easily replaced.

Furthermore, record companies understand trends. When someone becomes a hit, record companies are quick to sign and manufacture variations on this act that the market demands. Case in point: Ke$ha. She cannot sing at all, but with the aid of AutoTune and lyrics that make Nick Nolte seem coherent, she fits into the niché that was created with Lady Gaga going massive.

Why do you think that I hate the record companies so much in days like this? Ke$ha isn't even rock bottom, either. I suppose who I should hate are the people fueling these trends. Shame on everyone who bought a Ke$ha, Just Bieber, or Vicky Chase CD; you are supporting musicians who don't actually do anything to qualify as musicians (can't sing, can't play instruments, lyrics are steaming piles of ****, I'm going off on a tangent here so I should probably stop... **** trends, I want musicians to be playing music ;_

The point is saying "bands get snubbed by record companies" is an oversight. The band got snubbed because either their sound is untested and unproven OR their sound is against what the market is indulging in. As a business, if the market is not purchasing something, then there is no point to produce. Indie labels work well with this notion (sell to the niché).

And these bands often turn to the method I mentioned to get bigger. See example below.

I should point out I am in favor of innovative marketing and establishing adapted trends. What I opposed is the notion that we should force the market to evolve. That force creates instability. The anti-copyright movement is all about killing the current model, but the problem is in doing so many artists who are unconcerned with doing all the work their former record company did are left to die. Instead of forcing the market to change via the notion that you should take whatever you want for free, I support alternative avenues. For The Humble Bundle, I paid $40, when the average was closer to $14 (for Linux users). Of course, despite the fact that you could pay as low as $0.01 for 5 amazing INDIE games (later, a sixth was given), and you could even set 100% of your money going to a charity, people still pirated the Humble Bundle.

(I got it after the deal ended so I paid like 20 euros for it; stupid mac steam only having that option >.> The only game that was worth playing was AYIM; not having Braid ****ing sucked for the package)

Well it really depends in this case. Do you mean we don't force it in the sense that we give the market time to adapt, or do you mean we don't force the market in the sense that we say "You will never ever have to adapt to this infinite-supply technology" and ban it and never speak of it again? I think telling people that they have so and so much time to adapt, be it 5 years, 10 years, etc. is reasonable-it gives them time to milk the current system, but tells them "this new technology will happen". And it should!

Now, I mentioned "see below" before.

I'd like to introduce you to a band. Their name is Maggie, Pierce, and EJ. You probably don't know them-not manly people do, even in the area they tour in, all around the east coast from Maine to Philly to Tennessee. However, I'd like to consider them successful musicians along this model-they have produced 8 CDs, then two of them broke off and made another 3 CDs. I count them as possibly the very best folk rock out there; songs like Perfekt Day, Achy Feet, Sweeter, Cowchopping, and Smyle are pure genius. The band itself is great too; Great guitar playing, good drumming, an incredible clean singer and great 3-part harmonies sans autotune, original and inventive almost to the point of esoteric, and a ****ing mandolin-playing hippie.
Of course there's only a smaller niche for them, so they got neither radio play, nor massive concert halls, nor record deals. However, they lived off their music. They made almost no profit from their CDs (recorded and produced independently), and for the last few, they have been promoting themselves by giving the stuff away online. And they still make a living with nothing but concerts and merchandising (plus CD sales to the diehard fans, which happens to be most of the people who listen to them). They adapted to the new system, and with a genre which is not so supported nowadays, especially not by the youth-their last CDs have been available for free download. And they're better off than ever. The system can work, and work especially well for smaller artists.

 

[Crimson King]

Your example ignores the fact that you bring up: they aren't mainstream popular, and with the exception of Punk Rock, artists wouldn't be devoting hours upon hours of time to make it in the industry if they didn't want to be mainstream popular. Even groups like Danzig and Acid Bath and Nirvana who hated corporations of music were all for making money off of it, and changing what people wanted.

Also, you are going by what you want to dictate the industry. While they suck, Ke$ha, Justin Bieber, and Miley Cyrus are what people want right now. It'll be temporary, but it'll continue to sell until the market is oversaturated with these "musicians." Like when the boy band phase hit in the 90s and there were more groups than people interested in them, this terrible music phase will pass. But, record companies are all about making money because they are a business. They know what sells, and there are plenty musicians who can fill in what is selling.

Missed this one:

Well it really depends in this case. Do you mean we don't force it in the sense that we give the market time to adapt, or do you mean we don't force the market in the sense that we say "You will never ever have to adapt to this infinite-supply technology" and ban it and never speak of it again? I think telling people that they have so and so much time to adapt, be it 5 years, 10 years, etc. is reasonable-it gives them time to milk the current system, but tells them "this new technology will happen". And it should!

We don't force it at all. By saying "Adapt in 10 years or else," is laughable. First, who is going to demand this change? Second, who is going to prevent people from not forcing it now? The biggest problem with the pro-piracy movement is they ignore one major thing: if they model changes in favor of what they want, will they honestly stop taking for free? If you can answer yes with a straight face, you are just a liar. Only the most die-hard fans will ever support their favorite bands with the alternative is free music they like.

Now, instead of saying "adapt or die," why not just support alternative things that support these new models? You like a band that does it a certain way? Show others. Instead, the movement is saying "adapt or die," and then pirating everything, including venues supporting this model as seen with the Humble Bundle. Also, Penumbra was the best thing in there.

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah. The difference lies therein who the victim is. In the latter case, the victim is clearly best buy-they lost product, they can't sell it any more. They not only lost the product (1500) but also the money they could earn from it (1500 again). In the former case, assuming the downloader did not have the intent to buy it before learning that he could get it for free, who is the victim? It's a victimless crime. He didn't even really lose the money, because if I couldn't have pirated it, he would not have seen a penny from me anyways! And it's not a physical object either; it's data, easily copied in a few minutes.

How is the crime victimless if you've just taken $1500 away from someone? Albeit inadvertently, but that doesn't change the facts. You've stolen that item.

Well, seeing as you've decided to limit yourself (scrub logic ftw), then yes-it is fair, I worked a little harder, given up a good bit of bandwidth, and was able to look above my moral limits, you weren't. Therefore I deserve it and you don't.

So basically you've said you're justified to break the law in self interest at the expense of many others.

Purpose: attain a certain string of data/piece of software/music/etc. Can be equated to: Buying, Hacking, downloading free software, and writing your own software.
End result: you have the object in question without paying for it. Can be equated to: All of the above minus buying. Just pointing out this hole in that logic.

My point still stands

Buying, downloading something that is genuinely free, and creating your own software, are all legal.

Hacking and Downloading items that are not free are illegal.

In the case of a product with infinite supply? Yes, I'd say I am. Again, if I would not have been able to buy it in the first place, it is a victimless crime. The only result is that I am richer. Nobody becomes poorer or less well off.

Using your logic here I could rob the entire world of their belongings and be justified. The company can just make more for the people I stole from.

As to the part in red, that is incorrect. The producer became $1500 poorer and therefore less well off.
If the product was bought legally, the producer would have X dollars. Due to it being pirated the producer now has X-1500 dollars. 1500 less dollars than he should have, therefore poorer.

All right, this I'll give you-the "I can't afford it so I'll pirate it" argument is, morally, a little weak. But I still hold to my principles that if it is a victimless crime, where the only result is that I get richer and nobody else gets poorer, then I feel completely justified doing so, laws be ****ed (in fact, I make it a point to break rules/laws that I find anywhere on the scale between "unjustified" and "total bull****").

Once more, the crime isn't victimless, you stole money from the producer. An amount equal to the price of the product.

Also, Piracy is a threat to the industry in the same way that TV was a threat to the cinema, radio was a threat to the recorded music industry, and LPs were a threat to Vaudeville-a threat that you adapt to or die out. I mentioned this above, and I also mentioned ways for it to adapt feasibly.

You're completely wrong here.

T.V. provides competition to cinema. Also as movies come to cinema first and later are made available to T.V. viewers along with the many assets watching the movie screen has over the T.V. screen. The Cinema goes unchallenged and later the competition is healthy.

Radio makes no threat to recorded music. Radio does not play the same songs in a row on command, unlike albums and such which play the favorite songs for an individual repeatedly. Radio in this case boosts the recorded music industry. Someone hears a song on the radio, really likes it, finds out who the artist is and buys the music of that artsist, so they don't have wish to get lucky to hear the song on the radio again.

LPs and Vaudeville another form of competition.

Piracy to the industries that are subject to it is not even competition, piracy doesn't and can't provide incentive for lower prices because it doesn't get lower than free, and if people in the industry gave away all their product, they would be dirt poor. Piracy is parasitic, it takes money away from producers, hurts the industry and transitively hurts the economy.

If piracy was objectively right on the factual basis, there would be no music industry, no software industry or any of the sort, the people who make the programs and music wouldn't have money to create any more because everyone pirated their stuff since it's O.K.

After that- then what?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Your example ignores the fact that you bring up: they aren't mainstream popular, and with the exception of Punk Rock, artists wouldn't be devoting hours upon hours of time to make it in the industry if they didn't want to be mainstream popular. Even groups like Danzig and Acid Bath and Nirvana who hated corporations of music were all for making money off of it, and changing what people wanted.

Odd. I can name dozens of other musicians who do it similarly. And that's just from my hometown! It isn't about being mainstream popular, it's about making music. Tough **** for the musicians who are trying to jump in and get famous, they usually go upstream pretty fast anyways, with a few rare exceptions.

Also, you are going by what you want to dictate the industry. While they suck, Ke$ha, Justin Bieber, and Miley Cyrus are what people want right now. It'll be temporary, but it'll continue to sell until the market is oversaturated with these "musicians." Like when the boy band phase hit in the 90s and there were more groups than people interested in them, this terrible music phase will pass. But, record companies are all about making money because they are a business. They know what sells, and there are plenty musicians who can fill in what is selling.

Whoa whoa, while my personal preference is to burn all three of those mentioned artists at the stake, they would be among those still able to profit well from a new business model such as the one proposed.

Missed this one:



We don't force it at all. By saying "Adapt in 10 years or else," is laughable. First, who is going to demand this change? Second, who is going to prevent people from not forcing it now? The biggest problem with the pro-piracy movement is they ignore one major thing: if they model changes in favor of what they want, will they honestly stop taking for free? If you can answer yes with a straight face, you are just a liar. Only the most die-hard fans will ever support their favorite bands with the alternative is free music they like.

Now, instead of saying "adapt or die," why not just support alternative things that support these new models? You like a band that does it a certain way? Show others. Instead, the movement is saying "adapt or die," and then pirating everything, including venues supporting this model as seen with the Humble Bundle. Also, Penumbra was the best thing in there.

Wait hang on. We have a new technology that makes things better for consumers, we have a business model that supports this technology, and we are supposed to stop it from ever happening? That goes against any economic progression ever. Again, see vaudeville->phonogram! A world with piracy is better for consumers than a world without it, and we'd outlaw it even though the providers could adapt to it, and not that hard either? WHAAAAAAAT? This "forcing" of the economy has happened again and again and again in history with new technology coming out, and until it proves to be a technology that, if propagated would guarantee that the industry declines severely

How is the crime victimless if you've just taken $1500 away from someone? Albeit inadvertently, but that doesn't change the facts. You've stolen that item.

No, no I haven't. Adobe gets no money from me if I pirate it or not; I'm not buying that. The only thing that happens is that I get richer. And then, who knows, I tell my friends how awesome adobe software is (promotion for them based on my own experience), review it positively... You're assuming that every time someone pirates something, it's just as bad as if he would've bought it before pirating it, and instead stole it off the shelf.

So basically you've said you're justified to break the law in self interest at the expense of many others.

There is no expense. If there was a law against breathing, I wouldn't stop breathing, even if it would mean more air for the corporate heads of Peirri-air.

My point still stands

Buying, downloading something that is genuinely free, and creating your own software, are all legal.

Hacking and Downloading items that are not free are illegal.

Completely irrelevant; what is legal has no reason to be in this argument.

Using your logic here I could rob the entire world of their belongings and be justified. The company can just make more for the people I stole from.

As to the part in red, that is incorrect. The producer became $1500 poorer and therefore less well off.
If the product was bought legally, the producer would have X dollars. Due to it being pirated the producer now has X-1500 dollars. 1500 less dollars than he should have, therefore poorer.

If it was bought legally. That's the key point.

Your model only works if it would have been bought legally in the first place. If it wouldn't have been, it is only a cost for the producer in a 0-sum system.

You're completely wrong here.

T.V. provides competition to cinema. Also as movies come to cinema first and later are made available to T.V. viewers along with the many assets watching the movie screen has over the T.V. screen. The Cinema goes unchallenged and later the competition is healthy.

Radio makes no threat to recorded music. Radio does not play the same songs in a row on command, unlike albums and such which play the favorite songs for an individual repeatedly. Radio in this case boosts the recorded music industry. Someone hears a song on the radio, really likes it, finds out who the artist is and buys the music of that artsist, so they don't have wish to get lucky to hear the song on the radio again.

LPs and Vaudeville another form of competition.

Actually, in the beginning, LPs were pirating off of Vaudeville. And radio was just taking tracks and playing them. And of course, this is piracy. Read AltF4's thread.

Piracy to the industries that are subject to it is not even competition, piracy doesn't and can't provide incentive for lower prices because it doesn't get lower than free, and if people in the industry gave away all their product, they would be dirt poor. Piracy is parasitic, it takes money away from producers, hurts the industry and transitively hurts the economy.

The trick is to transform the product. Explained this before.

If piracy was objectively right on the factual basis, there would be no music industry, no software industry or any of the sort, the people who make the programs and music wouldn't have money to create any more because everyone pirated their stuff since it's O.K.

After that- then what?

Again, explained why piracy can work as a business model. Read up.

 

[Sieguest]

No, no I haven't. Adobe gets no money from me if I pirate it or not; I'm not buying that. The only thing that happens is that I get richer. And then, who knows, I tell my friends how awesome adobe software is (promotion for them based on my own experience), review it positively... You're assuming that every time someone pirates something, it's just as bad as if he would've bought it before pirating it, and instead stole it off the shelf.

They don't gain or lose if you don't get it.

They lose if you get it and don't pay. Then you tell your friends and they pirate it.

You're trying to ignore simple economic: Manufacturing and selling for profit

It takes X amount of money to make a program. (I'll call the program "A")

the company wants to make Y profit for A which costs X to make.

So X+Y= Z (the amount it will be sold for)

Now the company put 1000 As on the market. However there is more demand for it than there is in supply people. The company takes heed of this and starts making another batch of As

The 1000s As are sold. The company gets 1000Y in profit.

Someone comes along and pirates the program. Tells their friends about it and word gets around. The other 1002 people end up pirating the program.

The company now puts out 1002A onto the shelfs, to later be dismayed that no one buys it because somehow demand was filled. The company has now lost 1002X.

It is undeniable that there is a victim in the crime, as well as undeniable that it does nothing but hurt industry.

Completely irrelevant; what is legal has no reason to be in this argument.

Then you should re-read the OP. Legality is ethics, the basis of this topic is ethics.

If it was bought legally. That's the key point.

Your model only works if it would have been bought legally in the first place. If it wouldn't have been, it is only a cost for the producer in a 0-sum system.

See beginning of post.

Actually, in the beginning, LPs were pirating off of Vaudeville. And radio was just taking tracks and playing them. And of course, this is piracy. Read AltF4's thread.

Radio stations payed for the tracks and as I said before, they randomized what was aired so someone couldn't listen to what they wanted at will unlike if they had bought the track themselves.

As to LPs and Vaudeville, and where did pirating get Vaudeville? Do we have it today?

Again, explained why piracy can work as a business model. Read up.

Because Adobe clearly sells T-Shirts.

Sarcasm aside, you need money to make money, also a lot of places all ready make use of demo's and such, companies produce trial versions of a product so that a potential customer may see if they like it, but still pirates go and take THE WHOLE THING. Companies such as Adobe don't produce peripheral merchandise such as t-shirts and the like . And for companies like Adobe, the main thing is their product, that's where all the money goes and comes from even if they had t-shirts.

Such as with video games, I can find demos everywhere, but then going and pirating the whole game costs the company as in my example at the beginning of this post. They're pulling much more of the majority of their total profit from the games than any t-shirts or hats that they sell, because as it is with most peripheral merchandise profits from these items also have to go to the companies that made the supplies for those items, such as a cloth factory for t-shirts and hats and such.

Music groups pull a majority of their profits from the concerts they perform, and you can't pirate live performance. CDs are peripheral merchandise and not the main source of profit for music groups so they could probably survive in the system you suggest. In fact the "takes money to make money" saying could be used to justify the piracy in the music making business if it was a music group in my example at the beginning of this post.

 

[blazedaces]

Guest, you really need to take a course in econ101... you need to understand both the concept of supply and demand, black markets, price differentiation (this might help you figure out what people mean when they say "if I never intended to buy it"), and perhaps a good amount of research into copyright/trademark/patent law.

Your posts tend to blanket over all three, pretending that the same rules apply to everything from music to games, to physical objects (they absolutely do not). You also continuously pretend that pirating = lost sale of x price. As if adobe placing $1500 on their product actually means it cost them $1500 dollars to produce (oh yeah, look up profit = total revenue - total cost).

I really don't mean to sound condescending, nor am I saying it's very impressive to have taken a course in econ101... but I honestly believe it would do you some good to understand these concepts better.

Good luck,
-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

They don't gain or lose if you don't get it.

They lose if you get it and don't pay. Then you tell your friends and they pirate it.

You're trying to ignore simple economic: Manufacturing and selling for profit

It takes X amount of money to make a program. (I'll call the program "A")

the company wants to make Y profit for A which costs X to make.

So X+Y= Z (the amount it will be sold for)

Now the company put 1000 As on the market. However there is more demand for it than there is in supply people. The company takes heed of this and starts making another batch of As

The 1000s As are sold. The company gets 1000Y in profit.

All right, sound up until now...

Someone comes along and pirates the program. Tells their friends about it and word gets around. The other 1002 people end up pirating the program.

The company now puts out 1002A onto the shelfs, to later be dismayed that no one buys it because somehow demand was filled. The company has now lost 1002X.

And now it falls apart. First of all, you're assuming that each of these 1002 people would have bought the program. The demand may have been filled temporarily, but the company still has these 1002A that they can sell to different people, and if it's a good program, there will still be demand. And finally, if they wouldn't have/couldn't have bought it anyways, they are not included in demand. In other words, the demand of the product has not sunken if they couldn't have/wouldn't have bought it anyways; it's a completely independent system.

Then you should re-read the OP. Legality is ethics, the basis of this topic is ethics.

Let's go by the laws of a different country. For example, Afghanistan, where you can kill women for them showing off their ankles. Sounds like an ethical law to me!

Laws have a lot more going on for them than ethics. A purely ethical set of laws would not only change completely with the change in the heads of people, but have trouble doing the job laws should do. Legality≠Ethics.

Radio stations payed for the tracks and as I said before, they randomized what was aired so someone couldn't listen to what they wanted at will unlike if they had bought the track themselves.

As to LPs and Vaudeville, and where did pirating get Vaudeville? Do we have it today?

No, we don't have vaudeville today. The LPs were the pirates.
And radio initially did not pay for that kind of thing.

Because Adobe clearly sells T-Shirts.

Sarcasm aside, you need money to make money, also a lot of places all ready make use of demo's and such, companies produce trial versions of a product so that a potential customer may see if they like it, but still pirates go and take THE WHOLE THING. Companies such as Adobe don't produce peripheral merchandise such as t-shirts and the like . And for companies like Adobe, the main thing is their product, that's where all the money goes and comes from even if they had t-shirts.

...Yes, the concept would be to find a way that such a business could exist in a world where they have infinite supply. Not easy, but almost certainly possible. At worst, bring back harder DRMs and say "pay X much per month and you can have this program. Make it so that it's illegal to modify the contents of computer programs more than the EULA allows you to (obviously, opening EULAs online is a big part of this), and make the program need some kind of authorization, or monthly fee, or similar. There are ways. The trick for making something valuable when it has infinite supply is to make it worthless unless you buy something else with limited demand.

Music groups pull a majority of their profits from the concerts they perform, and you can't pirate live performance. CDs are peripheral merchandise and not the main source of profit for music groups so they could probably survive in the system you suggest. In fact the "takes money to make money" saying could be used to justify the piracy in the music making business if it was a music group in my example at the beginning of this post.

Well yeah, pirating music should be implemented as a system relatively soon IMO.

 

[Crimson King]

Budget: You ignored this one. If a system is in place to get artists money for their work, what will stop people from pirating still for free? Humble Bundle proved that people WILL still scam even the little guys and cost them big bucks (Wolfire had to post asking pirates to pirate from torrent sites instead of theirs because it was costing them money in bandwidth).

Guest, you really need to take a course in econ101... you need to understand both the concept of supply and demand, black markets, price differentiation (this might help you figure out what people mean when they say "if I never intended to buy it"), and perhaps a good amount of research into copyright/trademark/patent law.

Your posts tend to blanket over all three, pretending that the same rules apply to everything from music to games, to physical objects (they absolutely do not). You also continuously pretend that pirating = lost sale of x price. As if adobe placing $1500 on their product actually means it cost them $1500 dollars to produce (oh yeah, look up profit = total revenue - total cost).

I really don't mean to sound condescending, nor am I saying it's very impressive to have taken a course in econ101... but I honestly believe it would do you some good to understand these concepts better.

Good luck,
-blazed

The problem is no one here really has a concept of free market economics. I advise you read the teaching of Ludwig von Mises to really get a concept of how markets work. Yes, the market wants a change, but saying "Screw them, I'll get what they have for free!" doesn't change the producers. It forces them to adapt the system to their ways. Worst still, if just kills off the people who can't afford to keep up with the new model.

Instead of pirating, which does not help a market as it sees no exchange for goods or services, pay for services you do support.

I support indie games. So, when I buy games on PC, they are always indie. If I buy a big publisher game, it'll be on consoles because that's how I want it all to evolve.

The notion that you even matter to producers is laughable since you aren't willing to give up funds for anything. Instead vote with your dollar for a market alternative.

 

[Sieguest]

Guest, you really need to take a course in econ101... you need to understand both the concept of supply and demand, black markets, price differentiation (this might help you figure out what people mean when they say "if I never intended to buy it"), and perhaps a good amount of research into copyright/trademark/patent law.

Your posts tend to blanket over all three, pretending that the same rules apply to everything from music to games, to physical objects (they absolutely do not). You also continuously pretend that pirating = lost sale of x price. As if adobe placing $1500 on their product actually means it cost them $1500 dollars to produce (oh yeah, look up profit = total revenue - total cost).

I really don't mean to sound condescending, nor am I saying it's very impressive to have taken a course in econ101... but I honestly believe it would do you some good to understand these concepts better.

Good luck,
-blazed

As to taking Economics, I'm on summer vacation, I don't take Eco until the beginning of next year. I still know about supply and demand however, and I don't see how you're telling me to look at something I haven't displayed incorrectly.

All points considered I am lacking in knowledge of economics, but I still don't see how with things such as what you listed how you can deny that piracy is hurting a company, I don't see how it's a victimless crime when it's obvious someone is losing money. And for the record Lost Money=/= Lost sale. If you never intended to buy it, it's not a lost sale, that however doesn't mean that it isn't lost money since you end up with something that you SHOULD HAVE paid for.

And now it falls apart. First of all, you're assuming that each of these 1002 people would have bought the program. The demand may have been filled temporarily, but the company still has these 1002A that they can sell to different people, and if it's a good program, there will still be demand. And finally, if they wouldn't have/couldn't have bought it anyways, they are not included in demand. In other words, the demand of the product has not sunken if they couldn't have/wouldn't have bought it anyways; it's a completely independent system.

No, if I assumed that the people were going to buy the program I would have said the company would have lost 1002Z, instead I said they lost 1002X. 1002 times the cost it takes to make the product. And even if there is still demand, that demand is then filled by piracy. Leaving all supply and no demand. The product is now worthless, the company spent money making 1002A and they won't see a return on it. Lost money.

And if people want a product, why wouldn't they be factored into demand? That fits exactly what demanding is, wanting the product. If you now say what if they didn't want the product, then what are they doing getting it in the first place?

Let's go by the laws of a different country. For example, Afghanistan, where you can kill women for them showing off their ankles. Sounds like an ethical law to me!

Laws have a lot more going on for them than ethics. A purely ethical set of laws would not only change completely with the change in the heads of people, but have trouble doing the job laws should do. Legality≠Ethics.

Look up the word "ethics". The study of ethics is the study of right and wrong. It doesn't determine what is right or wrong. Your use of the word "ethical" is your connotation for what you think is right. Dentotatively, the laws in Afghanistan also are linked to ethics. They believe it is wrong for a woman to show her ankles and they administer a punishment that they see fit to the crime.

Now answer this, what is the job of laws? To protect people from WRONGdoing correct?
Why is there law concerning murder if the laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning stealing if laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning child molestation if laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning **** if laws have nothing to do with ethics?

No, we don't have vaudeville today. The LPs were the pirates.

Why did you start your sentence with "no" if I just asked a question that didn't imply any "yes" or "no"? And bingo, piracy destroys industry.

And radio initially did not pay for that kind of thing.

Do they now?

...Yes, the concept would be to find a way that such a business could exist in a world where they have infinite supply. Not easy, but almost certainly possible. At worst, bring back harder DRMs and say "pay X much per month and you can have this program. Make it so that it's illegal to modify the contents of computer programs more than the EULA allows you to (obviously, opening EULAs online is a big part of this), and make the program need some kind of authorization, or monthly fee, or similar. There are ways. The trick for making something valuable when it has infinite supply is to make it worthless unless you buy something else with limited demand.

So I have this wii that I bought a hard copy of super smash brothers for. Now I have pay $40.00 bucks a month to play a game? Now that's running the people out of money. This system will kill business the other way around, run the consumers out of money with an overcentralized system.

Well yeah, pirating music should be implemented as a system relatively soon IMO.

If it can work, it works. But it seems most governments, nor those artists who don't put on many live performances don't agree.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Budget: You ignored this one. If a system is in place to get artists money for their work, what will stop people from pirating still for free? Humble Bundle proved that people WILL still scam even the little guys and cost them big bucks (Wolfire had to post asking pirates to pirate from torrent sites instead of theirs because it was costing them money in bandwidth).

Um... what system? Hang on a second here. What I am saying is that artists are completely able to get by without relying on CD sales/things that can be pirated. I'm saying that physical copies of the music should:
A) Not exist. Worst case scenario, where the only "CDs" are concert bootlegs.
B) Prove as a way to market the band (more like likely) for free, like an advertisement.

How do you scam a concert? Unless you're copying the experience, bit for bit, then you can't.

The problem is no one here really has a concept of free market economics. I advise you read the teaching of Ludwig von Mises to really get a concept of how markets work. Yes, the market wants a change, but saying "Screw them, I'll get what they have for free!" doesn't change the producers. It forces them to adapt the system to their ways. Worst still, if just kills off the people who can't afford to keep up with the new model.

We kill them off because they can't keep up with the new model. There's a carrot (change to the new model and you stop losing money because of piracy) and a stick (change or piracy will kill you) and they are saying get rid of both instead of just going the direction we want them to.

Instead of pirating, which does not help a market as it sees no exchange for goods or services, pay for services you do support.

I support indie games. So, when I buy games on PC, they are always indie. If I buy a big publisher game, it'll be on consoles because that's how I want it all to evolve.

The notion that you even matter to producers is laughable since you aren't willing to give up funds for anything. Instead vote with your dollar for a market alternative.

I am They don't get my money if I don't support their practices. And I do buy things, contrary to the popular rumor. I bought the indie pack for 20 euros, the Orange Box for 30 euros, and braid for 15. I support businesses that I appreciate in various ways; in the case of musicians, I consider myself a "free advertising agent". Yeah, I'm a ****.

But I do buy CDs of bands that A) need the money and B) that I truly appreciate. Shame there just aren't any at the moment that I am interested in and who wouldn't just give me the CD for free (the MPE band is one of the few that qualify and they would gladly give my family a copy of their whole discography for free; most of the rest my mother works for ). If a band doesn't need the money or I don't really appreciate it, then I'm not gonna pay for it.

Hence why I didn't buy the new Megadeth/Metallica/Behemoth/COB/SymphonyX/etc. album; they don't need my demand and I need my money. Plus buying that supports the system I am working against.

No, if I assumed that the people were going to buy the program I would have said the company would have lost 1002Z, instead I said they lost 1002X. 1002 times the cost it takes to make the product.

...So... nothing? The cost of me reproducing my copy of CS4 is the time it takes me to go to the relevant folder and right click -> copy.

And even if there is still demand, that demand is then filled by piracy. Leaving all supply and no demand. The product is now worthless, the company spent money making 1002A and they won't see a return on it. Lost money.

See, the key is making the product so that it gets around piracy somehow. See my example above. If everyone pirates it, and not just the group of people who would not have had the ability to buy it, then the system begins to break a little bit, that I'll admit. But right now, it's more about the matter that you would include the pirates who wouldn't have gotten it if it wasn't free into the demand for the product.

And if people want a product, why wouldn't they be factored into demand? That fits exactly what demanding is, wanting the product. If you now say what if they didn't want the product, then what are they doing getting it in the first place?

If a graphic designer in africa who lives off of dollars a week wants CS4, should we factor him into demand? It is simply above and beyond his means. There's a difference between demand and reasonably assumed demand; or put otherwise, if X people want your product but only Y (Y<X) have the means to purchase it, would you call X the demand or Y? Obviously Y, because you can't expect to get money out of the parts of X that aren't included in Y.

Look up the word "ethics". The study of ethics is the study of right and wrong. It doesn't determine what is right or wrong. Your use of the word "ethical" is your connotation for what you think is right. Dentotatively, the laws in Afghanistan also are linked to ethics. They believe it is wrong for a woman to show her ankles and they administer a punishment that they see fit to the crime.

Now answer this, what is the job of laws? To protect people from WRONGdoing correct?
Why is there law concerning murder if the laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning stealing if laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning child molestation if laws have nothing to do with ethics?
Why is there a law concerning **** if laws have nothing to do with ethics?

Did I say nothing?

....

Okay, you could interpret what I said that way. It doesn't have "nothing" to do with ethics, rather, it doesn't have everything to do with ethics. There are unethical laws, mostly because each person's ethics are different, and partially because some people let the people giving them money decide their ethics.

Why did you start your sentence with "no" if I just asked a question that didn't imply any "yes" or "no"? And bingo, piracy destroys industry.

No, piracy CHANGES industry! Is a world with vaudeville and without LPs/other recorded music better than a world with recorded music and without vaudeville?

Do they now?

Of course. They pay a fee to be able to use music, a flat rate. Now, how about we get that for our internet providers? RIAA/MPAA give the ISPs a flat rate to cover per customer, i.e. the customer gets gouged a little more to back up the movie/gaming/software industry?

Although, I have to admit, that seems a little far-fetched; paying more for internet for everyone instead of just those that download? Iffy.

So I have this wii that I bought a hard copy of super smash brothers for. Now I have pay $40.00 bucks a month to play a game? Now that's running the people out of money. This system will kill business the other way around, run the consumers out of money with an overcentralized system.

$40.00 a month?

Also, wii is a lousy example mostly because it isn't a computer, it's a console. Sure, you can still pirate **** with it, but you need a computer to hack it, then you need to use said computer to download the pirated game, and all the while, the people making the wii can control what's on it. Think more like "I got this copy of Half-life 2 off the internet and have to pay $10 a month if I want to play it".

If it can work, it works. But it seems most governments, nor those artists who don't put on many live performances don't agree.

The artists who don't put on many live performances (studio artists) get shafted by the change, obviousy. It sucks for them. They will have to change how they work. And the government? Well, the RIAA and MPAA are big fat mighty organizations with big lobby groups. Think about that one, will ya.

 

[Sieguest]

...So... nothing? The cost of me reproducing my copy of CS4 is the time it takes me to go to the relevant folder and right click -> copy.

You can't copy the plastic on a CD (or whatever CDs are made out of...)! Yeah copying the program is simple. But every CD they have to buy costs money. Although, I'll admit, CD cost is trivial compared to how much is being charged per copy.

See, the key is making the product so that it gets around piracy somehow. See my example above. If everyone pirates it, and not just the group of people who would not have had the ability to buy it, then the system begins to break a little bit, that I'll admit. But right now, it's more about the matter that you would include the pirates who wouldn't have gotten it if it wasn't free into the demand for the product.



If a graphic designer in africa who lives off of dollars a week wants CS4, should we factor him into demand? It is simply above and beyond his means. There's a difference between demand and reasonably assumed demand; or put otherwise, if X people want your product but only Y (Y<X) have the means to purchase it, would you call X the demand or Y? Obviously Y, because you can't expect to get money out of the parts of X that aren't included in Y.

But how will companies know who can and can't afford their product? I may be wrong in this but from what I think all the company sees is that so many people want this product.

Did I say nothing?

....

Okay, you could interpret what I said that way. It doesn't have "nothing" to do with ethics, rather, it doesn't have everything to do with ethics. There are unethical laws, mostly because each person's ethics are different, and partially because some people let the people giving them money decide their ethics.

Yeah, I can accept that.

No, piracy CHANGES industry! Is a world with vaudeville and without LPs/other recorded music better than a world with recorded music and without vaudeville?

Isn't destruction change?
Piracy destroyed vaudeville. and then there was recorded music. Now when did recorded music put a price tag on its stuff?

Of course. They pay a fee to be able to use music, a flat rate. Now, how about we get that for our internet providers? RIAA/MPAA give the ISPs a flat rate to cover per customer, i.e. the customer gets gouged a little more to back up the movie/gaming/software industry?

Although, I have to admit, that seems a little far-fetched; paying more for internet for everyone instead of just those that download? Iffy.

If that fee went to pay off stuff that was pirated, then I wouldn't that as too bad.

It's like public education, even parents without children are paying for public education in taxes. Seems like the same concept.

$40.00 a month?

When I got brawl I payed forty smackers for it. So I just stuck with that price.

Also, wii is a lousy example mostly because it isn't a computer, it's a console. Sure, you can still pirate **** with it, but you need a computer to hack it, then you need to use said computer to download the pirated game, and all the while, the people making the wii can control what's on it. Think more like "I got this copy of Half-life 2 off the internet and have to pay $10 a month if I want to play it".

Okay, so in terms of a computer. What if someone (like big game junkies) downloads all the games they would've bought for their X-box or something for $10 bucks a month for each game they have. You still run into the same problem of consumers getting sapped of every dollar they have eventually. Unlike buying all those games at say GameStop for the one time price of $32.99 and then being done with it. The consumer's money can replenish then.

Unless, you mean that the option to buy a hard copy of the game is available, but those who download it from the internet pay that monthly fee. But in that sense it would become unfair to the internet downloader because now they are paying for the game. Then I guess that can be remedied by having the 10 a month as a sort of payment schedule. You'll pay 10 a month until you cover the cost of the game?

The artists who don't put on many live performances (studio artists) get shafted by the change, obviousy. It sucks for them. They will have to change how they work. And the government? Well, the RIAA and MPAA are big fat mighty organizations with big lobby groups. Think about that one, will ya.

Well there are groups that lobby day and night and still don't get what they want.
As to studio artists who are to get shafted by the change. I guess that's business. I'll accept that. (I would be sad that a lot of my favorite jazz artists would be going out of business.)

 

[Crimson King]

I am They don't get my money if I don't support their practices. And I do buy things, contrary to the popular rumor. I bought the indie pack for 20 euros, the Orange Box for 30 euros, and braid for 15. I support businesses that I appreciate in various ways; in the case of musicians, I consider myself a "free advertising agent". Yeah, I'm a ****.

But I do buy CDs of bands that A) need the money and B) that I truly appreciate. Shame there just aren't any at the moment that I am interested in and who wouldn't just give me the CD for free (the MPE band is one of the few that qualify and they would gladly give my family a copy of their whole discography for free; most of the rest my mother works for ). If a band doesn't need the money or I don't really appreciate it, then I'm not gonna pay for it.

Hence why I didn't buy the new Megadeth/Metallica/Behemoth/COB/SymphonyX/etc. album; they don't need my demand and I need my money. Plus buying that supports the system I am working against.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how revenue works.

When the Humble Bundle sells $1.2 million, that's an impetus for companies to switch to that marketing scheme UNTIL they see that there was still large numbers of pirate out there stealing the game from the company servers and costing bandwidth dollars.

In this instance, the negative will be viewed. If Indie companies can't convince pirates to pay EVEN A SINGLE PENNY to get 5 - 6 games, how can a Triple A publisher, who pirates oppose on some misguided principle expect to make a cent... literally?

When you pirate, you don't hurt the producers as much as you hurt other consumers. Producers, for the most part, will continue to make loads of money, though not as much as they'd like or deserve. However, when things are pirated, it encourages anti-piracy measures that hurt the users who use the product correctly. Take Spore. EA has had issues with piracy, locked down Spore tightly, so people who used it correctly could not get full access to their own product, and being casual users, didn't have the knowledge or interest in pirating the game, so they paid money for it, which showed EA that even with heavy lock down, people would buy their products.

This is the point that all anti-copyright/pro-piracy people miss. The market can support the old ways of commerce BECAUSE people still support it. If no one bought EA's locked down games, they'd change without hesitation. Instead, they are doing that + they are looking at offering microtransactions for items in games like weapons in MMOs. Guess what? People are also buying those enough to make that a feasible move.

 

[AltF4]

Thought you guys could keep me out forever?

I think you have the lesson learned from Spore backward, CK. Spore's DRM failed miserably. Because all DRM fails miserably. "Copy protection" and other DRM forms are provably impossible to achieve. (I'll expand on that if you wish.)

The lesson that Spore taught us was that DRM has nothing at all to do with piracy. Nothing in the slightest. DRM cannot force someone who wants to play your game for free from doing so. DRM CAN however, milk "loyal paying customers" for all their worth, alienating them, angering them, and making them want to pirate the next copy of your game.

There is no arms race between DRM and piracy. This is a charade. DRM is just a way to strong arm paying customers, put rental stores out of business, and artificially eliminate competition. Nothing at all to do with piracy.



You seem so helplessly locked into industrial age economics, CK. This is the information age. You have to stop seeing things in terms of units that you can bottle up and sell. This is precisely where the "pro-copyright people miss", to use your line.

What exactly is your vision of the future? We should un-invent the Internet? We should un-invent the Terabyte hard drive and BitTorrent? What world do you think we live in? However you may desire to turn back the dial of time, you can't.



Don't expect for there to be a single solution that magically makes it so that everyone who once made a living off of record sales now can live off of digital downloads. Why should we expect such a solution? Instead, we have many hundreds of separate solutions which each work in their own circumstance.

Some people can live off of concert sales, some through donations, some through merchandise, some through physical book sales, some by art as commission. But most likely, many will do all of the above.

And if you can't handle it, then you are not a 21st century artist. Perhaps you can paint a beautiful fresco. Wonderful, but it's not contemporary art. There is little market in it. Perhaps you can smith an awesome stagecoach by hand? Awesome, but not contemporary engineering. There is little market for it.

What we are seeing is the decline (perhaps not fall) of the recording artist. Music did not begin with the recording industry and it will not end with the mp3. I see no reason at all to build a system of laws to artificially prop up a failing industry, while simultaneously making tens of millions of Americans into uncaught felons.