It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

so how is online piracy justified again?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MeteoraXV


Piracy?

God give me strength...

Look. Even modern day Pirates do not do piracy these days. They do not wear absurd pantaloons, most of them carry AK47s and rocket launchers, rather than the regulation cutlass and long dirk combination, and none of them wear tricorn hats.

People BOOTLEGGING, is an entirely different issue, but calling it piracy is like calling a child stealing a packet of gum from a corner shop, a serious armed robbery that might have been part of an organised criminal enterprise!!! Let me tell you something about bootlegging. I am a metalhead, and I have looked into the effect of bootlegging on the music industry, with specific focus on the metal scene.

A case which illustrates the effect of bootlegging perfectly, is the rise in popularity of Metallica back in the eighties. These days, Lars Ulrich, the drummer of the band, is well known for his anti-napster, anti free sharing site stance, but what many people forget, is that without bootleggers, Metallica would not have enjoyed the meteoric rise in popularity that they gained. It worked like this:

My metallic ancestors would go and see a Metallica concert, and they would record bootleg video of the event, and they would purchase an album or single at the event, and take it home. They would show the video to their friends, and they would copy the album audio medium somehow, usually on a cassete tape, and send it to a friend, to let them hear the glorious music, and spread the joy that Metallicas early output would inspire in the listener. Then, that friend would listen to the music, and pass it on to another friend and so on and so forth. By hand, by mail, the word would be spread, and the kingdom of Metallica fandom would grow.

This method of sharing music, might see one tape travel the length and breadth of a country, and even cross international lines! It was the only way to do it for some people, because you have to remember, that there was no real internet back then, it being a pipe dream being worked on by a very small number of people, at the time. You must also remember, that media was not as broad and open minded back then, so getting access to the ability to have hundreds of thousands of people hear their music, was harder than it is today. Today, a band can make some music, put it on youtube, and if a whole bunch of people like it, they can get a following before they even have to book a gig!

By extending their fan base, beyond those who had been reached by tours, and by limited radio time in certain world wide locations, the bootleggers actually assisted Metallica in gaining fans who would never have heard their music, would never have written to local venues, asking them to book the band, and so on and so forth.

When Cliff Burton (the greatest metal bass player I have ever heard of) died in an autovehiclular clusterbang, bootlegged video from his time in the band, was assembled and put out as a video called Cliff Em All, which I have a copy of somewhere on VHS. It contains footage which existed no where else but in the hands of fans, who contributed their bootlegged videos in honour of his passing, and in mourning for a fallen brother metalhead. It is a touching, and noisy tribute, which would have been impossible without the ancient art of bootlegging.

Moving right along, in two thousand and two or so. A friend of mine invited me over to hear a tape that someone had made, which contained a track by Children of Bodom, called Children of Decadence. It was the most stupendous thing I had ever heard, and it was metal of a sort which was, to me at that time, such a rarefied sort that I would never have heard about its existence if not for that tape. I immediately rushed to see if they had any gigs coming up locally, and found that they were playing in London. They had the honour of being the first band I saw live.

Lets bring things forward to 2004 or there abouts. I had very little money at that time, and I had to spend it wisely. I had no credit card, and nothing in my bank account to pay for things on the internet. My only way of learning about new music to listen to, was over the internet from things like Winamp and P2P sharing systems, or waiting for one of my better heeled friends to buy an album, and bring it over for a sound session. Waiting for friends to buy an album, just to see whether you like it, is not a great approach, because you have to rely on their financial stability in order that they continue to collect masses of music, and you also have to rely on their particular tastes.

By using P2P sharing back in the day, I was able to find a vast number of bands and music, which I had never even dreamed could have existed, and would simply not have heard about without using the system, and I found these bands independently, which meant that I was in full control of looking for the sorts of things I would like, rather than having to wait for a friend to buy an album which suited both our tastes, in order to have my metal muscle exercised.

Bootlegging by P2P allowed me to focus my spending on bands that I was interested in, and allowed me to expand my horizon of interest also. Now, I am not suggesting that my meagre expendtitures over the years can account for a significant percentage of any one bands income, because as previously stated, I was, and am, a relatively poorly funded person. However, if you count up all the people out there who have had an experience like mine so far in life, who love music but have very little money, that would probably lead to a significant percentage of music industry income.

Metallica, to circle back to the original point, would not have had the meteoric rise and success they enjoyed before they sold out and stopped being a thrash band (Black Album, may its name be forever cursed, and its riffs rot until naught but six rust marks on a broken fretboard), without dedicated fans sharing their music in a cheap and effective way, and spreading that music as far and as wide as possible. That is how they would pack out massive auditoria, and how they would summon hordes upon hordes of hairy metal type people, to random feilds in the back of nowhere in order to play to massive festival crowds. Those crowds did not exclusively contain well to do kids with expensive music collections and freshly steam cleaned internal organs, but were significantly bolstered by those who had heard a cheap assed bootleg tape, and had hitchhiked, marched, and bludgeoned their way to see the marvel of early Metallica for themselves.

I have bought festival tickets based on bootlegged material before now, and probably will again if there is any justice in the world. I have bought albums based on it, and gig tickets, and by extension shirts, and coffee mugs, and key rings and God alone knows what else, and have lived my life under the banner of metal, ably assisted by access to free music. These days, I get to use Youtube to the same effect, but Lars Ulrich needs to accept that without bootleggers, his band would never have attained the fame they enjoy, and things are not that much different today. The mechanism differs, that is all.




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle
OP How do you think about stream sites where it is streamed not downloaded the movie and share it with others and do not directly have access to a file?
mp3.about.com...
"Legalities: When considering the legalities, it's best to think about the rights of the copyright holder. Websites that illegally upload and stream copyrighted material are infringing on copyright and therefore you should not use these; incidentally this offense is actually punishable by law in most countries. Remember, even though streaming technology isn't illegal (like P2P etc.), the nature of the content you're receiving might be."

blogs.findlaw.com...
"Is watching streaming movies illegal?

There is currently no definitive answer to this question. Depending on the site and file type, online streaming may create a full-length temporary copy of the movie on your computer. Alternatively, the program may delete the data as you watch.

Some courts have held that even temporary copies may violate the law. However, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when "a reproduction manifests itself so fleetingly that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated."

Though the law is unclear, it is useful to note that owners, such as the MPAA, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it's much more difficult to track these users down. Unlike BitTorrent downloads, the MPAA can't just sign into a program and snag IP addresses."

this is the part where i said "i'm not a saint myself" comes in. like i wrote, i listen to full albums on youtube even though i don't own the original copy, knowing that it is not right for me to do so. many factors involved here: the laws are different in each country, the nature of the content and the program used to stream said content, and so forth. the point of this thread is to convince me that piracy is justified.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Thefarmer
I took the wife to see Maleficent the other day...
2X Matinee $14.00 bucks.
2 sodas, popcorn, bag of gummie fish $26 dollars!
But we are talking of piracy not robbery!


Pretty good movie BTW, of course the wife raved on about it.
Oh the things we do for love...



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
DING DING DING!!!
Sir, you win the interwebz!
Your response was spot on, and Metallica did die with the black album IMHO, sold out sally.
Even when sold out though they had such a faithful fan base ...until they attacked those who bought their cheap Chinese merch...



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye
entertainment is immaterial, the object on which they are printed is not. in the digital world, also consider that a file is also regarded as a single object.

www.it.umd.edu...
"What is online piracy?
Simply put, online piracy is the uploading, downloading, or swapping/sharing of copyrighted files without the copyright holder’s permission. These files may be songs, movies, television shows, videos, or any other type of digital material. Those who are caught engaging in online piracy can be charged with and possibly convicted of copyright infringement, a felony."

when you buy a dvd or download a movie, you own a single copy or a single file. a single object, it is yours and not anyone else's. a file (which you could consider an immaterial object) is in itself a container of that entertainment. that's is why there are online piracy laws.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MeteoraXV
a reply to: mOjOm
What would be the difference if I invite someone to view it at my house on HBO which I pay for????
this is not piracy because you own your hbo subscription - a single subscription - you don't make copies of the show or of your subscription and distribute it to the people in your block. you merely invite people over to watch tv with you.


Is there a limit to how many people I can invite while not charging them for it???
What if I charge them, not for the entertainment but for the service of viewing on my Big Screen with Surround Sound and Comfort???

Is there a difference if I View it on HBO while inviting people over only showing when HBO Shows it???
What if I buy the DVD, how many times can I show it then and to how many???



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaDe_

I personally think the term piracy has been over generalized. The original piracy term was used along with counterfeiting and was meant to ensnare the people who were making copies of original content and selling it for a profit. It slowly transformed from that into a whole other all encompassing word that included everything from sharing to copying because someone decided that they should dictate what you can do with a product once you purchase it.


Ah ha!!!! Good point!!!

Since it's about profit, how does that change things.

As long as I don't profit why can't I share it???

Just because I share it with someone doesn't mean that had I not shared it they would have purchased it themselves so how can anyone claim that sharing it with someone else or letting them view it impacted their profit. There is no reason to believe that had they not viewed it for free that they would have paid to see it either. They might have just chosen not to see it at all in which case the makers lost no money in either situation.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: MeteoraXV

No, actually you only own what is in your mind as the entertainment you got after you watched/listened it, the container it comes on is only for you to be able to watch it incl. the digital imprint, no one can take the entertainment away from your mind.

In reality you should delete the entertainment after you have watched it, as you do not own the entertainment itself.

It's the same with a piece of candy, when you ate it, you used it and it doesn't exist anymore other than in your mind.

But, we are lucky that the world isn't that crazy when it comes to entertainment, so you can actually use the same thing again and again.


edit on 15-6-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
since i'm not american i am not aware of walmart but that is interesting news. so i read up on it and i take it that in your scenario, you take your dvd to walmart and they digitize it for you. this means you own a single digitized version of that movie, correct? well then you can invite your buddies over to watch it with you, but you can't share the movie (which is a single file) with anyone else by sending it to other people (which would make copies), because it counts as a single object that is yours and yours alone.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

So if it's the memory which you paid for then by that reasoning it should also be illegal to allow others to view it with you right???

Candy in your example you can indeed pay for once and share half of it with someone and still get the entire experience of it. They too would get the entire experience of it as well. both of you would end up with only the memory of it however.
edit on 15-6-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   
1) I'm a cheap skate with limited money to spend on music/shows
2) I want to view shows minutes or hours after they're available
3) I'm not in the US so I often cannot buy shows for a long time
4) I buy things I really like and which I can afford at the time
5) It's simple human nature to share and nothing will ever stop it
edit on 15/6/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I'm sure you got the point in what i said, even though it seems illogical.

Thats it from me.

Have a good one



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
-
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
reselling dvds is not a problem, because there are no copies being made. the same object is being circulated here. the only thing that the industry is concerned with is that they receive legally owed compensation for the sale of a single object. if you buy a movie, then the industry will have made its compensation that it is owed (the ten bucks), and from there on, the copy can be circulated as you wish - as long as no copies are made. it wouldn't matter if only one person bought a dvd and the rest of the world didn't, and the original purchaser circulates, through subsequent purchasers, the original disc around the world.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MeteoraXV

I believe the point mOjOm is trying to make is that it's not clear what constitutes piracy. Most people upload their movies and shows to the internet without expecting any compensation, they freely share it with others. Just like if I bought a DVD and then let my neighbors watch it with me, I wouldn't expect them to pay me. But at what point have I shared it with too many people, that is the fundamental question mOjOm is asking. Is it too many if I invite over 100 or 1000 people or does it only become too many when I upload it to the internet?



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: g146541
lol i like lars just because everyone hates him. i love st anger just because every one hates it
nah i just like it for personal reasons

anyways lars was right whether you like him or not. he had legal ground to stand on, plain and simple.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_
because someone decided that they should dictate what you can do with a product once you purchase it.
that's right and i don't see the problem with that. buying a container of entertainment (be it a disc or a file) is not the same as buying a toothpick or a pair of glasses or whatever. the seller doesn't care what you do with the toothpick or glasses - however, with the sale of entertainment it's a very different very deep and very complex situation. again, you don't need game of thrones to survive. no one is forcing you to watch it but you want and choose to watch it.
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Thefarmer
well if you can not afford, then too bad. either spend the money and shut up or go do something cheaper. (that was not meant to sound offensive or anything)

Now you see why people turn piracy....
i agree, humans are animals after all. that's just how we are.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SpaDe_
oh i didn't know that. well different laws for different countries i guess. it's different in my situation (i don't watch hbo though). but ok, so if he knows all this about hbo and the contract and it thus not sufficiently related to the subject at hand then why even post about it?
edit on 15-6-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
In my opinion we have been ripped off for years ! And piracy is really a form of advertising some DVDs I've watched on copy I've actually gone to see at the cinema were as I wouldn't have ! And also money is made from concerts now so if they are that good of a performer then people would pay to see them live ! All I can say is click download and don't line the pockets of the fat cats !



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join