Piracy

So if withholding the money that's owed is not harming them, an employer could just decide not to pay his employees? ...and then the man couldn't buy groceries for his family, couldn't pay the rent, would be kicked out of his home, would become homeless and on welfare,...

Oh, you say an employer is different? Okay, the judge tells you to pay child support in your divorce. You decide that your former wife wouldn't be harmed by you not paying, so ....you just refuse to pay her. It won't "harm" her, right?

Need another example? Or another one?

Sir, you have a very narrow view of the term "harm". I'd suggest that you take another hard look at it and perhaps do some research into legal cases concerning "harm".

If someone listens to songs or uses software that he pirated, he owes the artist or the developer money for it. If he does not pay the artist or developer, then he's "harmed" him.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Riiiight. Because not paying to support the child you spawned is equivalent to making a copy of a song.

You're back on the ignore list, stupid troll.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Never heard of analogies?

I would say again:
Sir, you have a very narrow view of the term "harm". I'd suggest that you take another hard look at it and perhaps do some research into legal cases concerning "harm".

If someone listens to songs or uses software that he pirated, he owes the artist or the developer money for it. If he does not pay the artist or developer, then he's "harmed" him.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Music has always been a matter of energy to me, a question of Fuel. Sentimental people call it Inspiration, but what they really mean is Fuel."
—Hunter S. Thompson​

 

Nobody is criticizing music, spidergoat. We're criticizing piracy. I can criticize the thief that steals your car without criticizing the car itself. Your post is a non-sequiter, totally unrelated.

 

Just read this, wondering what you guys think of it:

http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are...reak (Torrentfreak)&utm_content=Google Reader

They are basically saying the stats show that those who pirate music spend just as much money on music as anyone else, in fact more, they just buy stuff digitally rather than physically. Thus decreased physical CD sales.

 

It doesn't matter, Norse will simply state in a dogmatic manner that "Y'all been breakin' the law, and we'uns don't take kindly to that sort of goin's on 'round here..."

...

Oh, wait, this is legal? Well, in that case, it aught not to be, and therefore "we'uns don't take kindly to that sort of goin's on 'round here..."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think step one in fixing the problem is to stop calling them "pirates." It makes their activities sound a bit cool. They are infringers, at best. They have neither swords nor ships. In general what they do have is a computer and access to their mom's internet connection.

One can debate whether or not "thief" is an appropriate title, but "pirate" surely is not.

 

What you are trying to do is justify piracy by saying "well, they benefit in this way........."

The point is, whether or not they benefit someone is irrelevant, since they are still stealing and ignoring the consent of the property owners. I can't steal your car just because I'm going to get you a bike.

 

Arrrrr....!!! Pirates we are and pirates we be! Stop taking the fun out of this Pandaemoni. Otherwise this thread is simply reduced to:

Norse: You are a thief, and a scourge upon society!
Poster: But, extenuating circumstances...
Norse: You are a thief, and a scourge upon society!
Poster: But, we need to clarify definitions...
Norse: You are a thief, and a scourge upon society!
Poster: But, this gives musicians exposure and advertising, resulting in more $$ ...
Norse: You are a thief, and a scourge upon society!
Poster: But, we need to try before we buy...
Norse: You are a thief, and a scourge upon society!

Ad nauseuam... Not near as much fun as glorious pirates swooping in to scavenge the ether... !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

None of your justifications hold up to any light. You can't steal. Period. Even if it somehow 'benefits' somebody, you seem to be ignoring the consent factor and the fact that it is not your property.

 

See?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This one I can't evaluate, as its too general, but what circumstances require anyone to download music. "OMG! Steve's having a heart attack! Some one download 'Turn on Your Heartlight' by Elton John!"

Is the circumstance "I cannot afford it"? In that casem it's not a great justification.

That is a fine reason for the owner of the property to let you download it. It's not a great reason to take it from them without permission. Is theory that you know better than the copyright holder how to manage the property? Is the theory that musicians, bilked of their copyrights, need "pirates" (or, if one prefers "e-leeches") to give them the benefits of their music, record labels be damned?

The latter one is more justifiable, but is a Robin Hood ethic. under that theory, if you have money and I think I would do a better job spending it than you would, I'm justified in taking it. In any event it sounds liek an elaborate self-rationalization for why one would take an enjoy a product without the owner's consent.

No, you really don't. That really stretches the definition of "need" beyond its natural limits. Under that definition of need, I can "need" cable TV, and take it without paying the cable company for it.

You can sample to the extent owners or the law allow you to, but not more than that.

But more fun than the FAR CLOSER analogy of stealthily, electronically, attaching one's suckers to the soft flesh of the copyright holders and biting in through the skin so one draw in their life's blood.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oooohh - I like this one! Now you're getting in the spirit!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While piracy can be seen as theft, there are versions of "Corporate theft" which currently they seem to get away with. For instance lets look at the recent Windows 7, if you wanted to upgrade to from Home Premium to something "More compatible", you'll likely find yourself flabbergasted at how your getting hit for a high price. If for say you want to rebuy a film you had on DVD in Blueray again you are having to buy at full retail even though you're just gaining a format change.

These sorts of things are what technically bombs the market in regards to people wanting to go the legitimate root.

There is also the fact that most of the piracy focus was aimed at the downturn of sales. While piracy is rampant, there is also the point that the nowadays market is "Saturated" and it will continue to grow in size and dwindle the peak of those corporates market share. For instance in the UK for many years they kept the television channels down to a minimum, but over the last couple of decades the channel numbers have increased. This has caused a downturn in revenue from advertisements on a per channel basis, even though there is technically MORE advertisements than ever before.

It's just about the spread of the overall market across multiple players, of course the truly large players know they can hold their ground through a weak market because they own such a large market share.

So in essence Piracy and Theft is known to be wrong, but so's making someone pay over indulgent prices to try and cover the fact that the market trend is heading towards a larger break even than mogel heirachal tyranny.

 

Haha, but if you steal my bike to get me a car I'd probably be ok with that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Unless I really loved that bike.

I actually think all this morality debate is kind of besides the point, whether it is morally wrong or not people are still going to do it and you can't stop them, so the music industry really just needs to accept it and figure how they can best profit from it, rather than whining about it all the time. Pragmatism. The indy artists are there already which is why none of them are complaining.

 

Yeah, I think we can all agree that you shouldn't steal my car. But if you wanted to build your own copy of my car using your own labor and materials, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. In fact, if you started building a copy of my car and I complained about it and tried to stop you even though your actions weren't depriving me of the use of my car, people would probably think I was a nut.

 

I see you still don't understand the term "PROFIT". Heaven forbid you ever run a business.
Try this more accurate analogy - You can't steal a bike just because you replaced it with a porsche. Technically true, but do bear in mind only a fucking moron would press charges.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Theft isn't always wrong.

Lieven Bauwens

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem is that the leeches steal the bike, buy *never* buy a car for the copyright owner. Insofar as that interaction is concerned, the copyright owner gets nothing for his or her efforts, while the leech gets full enjoyment from the downloaded material for free.