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.

 

The Filesharing Conspiracy

page: 17
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by debunky
 

We were not talking production costs we were talking property rights. My song is my property. That is the law. Mr. x believes he has full access to my property anytime and as often as he chooses. I am saying I want access to his property. It is a very simple concept. I don't care who likes the comparison or not. This is not about economics as far as the filesharers are concerned. It is about a belief system and a way of life. Ok fine. I want to share your property anytime and as often as I choose. You cannot deny me w/o denying your belief system and your way of life. People need to start ponying up their addresses.



o.O
Of course its about economics!
There is a law that grants you a monopoly on Intelectual property for a "limited" time (Until your great grand children are dead) because otherwise you wouldnt be able to sell it!
Monopolys and Selling are Basic subjects in economics.
There is no aquivalent for non IP, so comparing this law and its merit to physical objects is just plain silly.
If you want to sell your car you need to give it away.
If you want to keep your car you must not sell it.
Once you sold your car, you have no right to add any limitations to the new owner. Sold your classic car to a film company, who wants to blow it up? Tough luck...
The "You wouldnt do this with a real object"-argument hurts the pro-copyright side of the argument more than the contra.
Of course, argumenting on the merits of the law is a tough sell as well, but there is the whole "nobody would produce recordings anymore" side.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
One way I think of this kind of issue, is in the kind of libertarian/political anarchist ideas, on intervention, power, vigilatism, rights, and so on.

We all set our own standards on what is acceptable, although some things may be universal.

On this scale, at the "white/acceptable" end of interference, may be something like Murder. If we see someone attempting to commit murder, almost all of us will think it is OK to assert power, and intervene. At the "black" end, we may have an act such as helping a sick person, or other charity, where almost no-one will think it is OK to intervene to stop someone helping.

To me, file-sharing, and information sharing appears to sit within the grey area. As humans and within society, no such consensus exists on whether it is acceptable to intervene against the creators wishes.

Personally I think that information hoarding, and this kind of monopolisation is bad, but not so bad that I have a right to interfere with the creators wishes, at least as far as entertainment information/data goes.

In my ideals, I tend to respect the rights of people in the grey area. An example may be freedom of speech. Some things that people may call "hate speech" are in the grey area, so I will give the benifit of the doubt and not intervene, allowing the most rights I can.

Sorry if this is not as clear as I'd like, but I hope you get my point.

[edit on 28/6/2010 by harpsounds]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 

You're not getting it. This new world they are supposedly creating IS NOT about economics it is about a way of life. SHARING. It is a CONCEPT. ECONOMICS has nothing to do with it. Economics is outdated. They want a world where everything is shared. That is why I asked if I could share your car and house. Don't you think sharing is good?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by debunky
 

You're not getting it. This new world they are supposedly creating IS NOT about economics it is about a way of life. SHARING. It is a CONCEPT. ECONOMICS has nothing to do with it. Economics is outdated. They want a world where everything is shared. That is why I asked if I could share your car and house. Don't you think sharing is good?



I am not sharing
I am giving you a 100% equivalent copy.
If its a .FLAC it is exactly as good as the track on the CD
If its a .avi it is better than the DVD, because it is of a reduced size, and doesnt have silly animated useless menus and no unskipable "arent you glad you didnt download this"-ads

"They" have nothing to do with this.

Edit to make this even clearer:
If you share my house, car, wife, I am at a a disadvantage.
If I "share" my digital stuff I am not.
Even if I created it myself. (and, yes, I do that)

[edit on 28-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.Morrison

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I fight battles every day while most people here are bitching on forums.


and then you come on ATS in between that to bitch about piracy....


Irony and idiocy are lost on most people.


indeed it is.


Piracy is theft. There is no justification for theft.


then give back the land you are standing on.

You can have principles,
but I'd sure love to see if you'd rather starve to death than steal a loaf of bread to live another day.

talk is cheap.

We both have valid reasons for our beliefs in my eyes,
I am open, you are uncompromising,
that (in my eyes) is the only place we differ.

I have no interest in continuing this discussion...
thank you for the debate.

-B.M

[edit on 28/6/10 by B.Morrison]


I love how you bring up giving back the land I stand on. My Grandfather was half Sioux and Half Cherokee. Sorry but I have a right to be here. That argument goes no where with me.

I said else where stealing a loaf of bread is completely different. If you are starving and have no other means to eat, then it may be necessary. Stealing a song you want or a book you want is different. They are luxuries and not nesecities. You can live without those things. In fact there are free ones available from people willing to allow free downloading. There are also librarys were you can borrow these things.

The library pays a higher initial cost for the material to off set some of the loss to the artists.

There is no justification for theft of some one's time, effort, or intellectual property.

You are open to being a petty theif and I believe that taking something is wrong. IF being a theif is an acceptable way of life then America is doomed for more reasons than politicians or TPTB.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

There is no justification for theft of some one's time, effort, or intellectual property.



There is no justification to charge money for a non scarce good. If you doubt that, try selling bottled water next to a fresh water spring, or refrigerators to any antarctic base.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I laugh at copy protected stuff. There are many ways to get around it. But hey look at Itunes and you can't play your music over your car radio that you bought. These are for car radios that use the Ipod controls. The reason being is that the persons in the car didn't pay for it to listen to. You can thank RIAA for that. I heard this from a friend so I am not sure if it is correct or not, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this.

Greed in America is getting worse.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
At the moment there are still too few people who understand how to download and use the software, I'm sure when the next generation grows up in this computer society it'll be common skills like writing. But by then many things will have disappeared, big budget productions will not be possible because of what humanity learned from the economic failures in our times.

Expensive software will be gone, mostly because computer skills will be common place but also due to the "new economics". There will be less extremes, you can see this happening now with people being able to broadcast themselves to millions and becoming famous like celebrities who earn their millions by copyrighted material. Simply because equipment needed to produce high quality content becomes cheaper everyday and computer skills becoming commonplace.

One interesting observation on linux, everything people need to work today can be done by using just linux. The problem is people don't understand computers sufficiently yet, many have not grown up with technology and are not able to use it other than a digital pen and paper with the added ability to send and receive in the blink of an eye.

The next generation (or the next after that) who will have access to the internet and high tech tablets from the moment they learn how to write have a great oppertunity to learn massive amounts of information but will also be able to express themselves through the digial media which will look like the multimillion budget Hollywoord movies of today. Those people will do this just for fun, attention, status and everything that comes with it rather than demanding millions to do it.

[edit on 28/6/2010 by Dragonfly79]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by MikeNice81

There is no justification for theft of some one's time, effort, or intellectual property.



There is no justification to charge money for a non scarce good. If you doubt that, try selling bottled water next to a fresh water spring, or refrigerators to any antarctic base.

He probably won't sell it but he still has the right to ask money for it.
Why does it bother you so much that artists are asking money for their creations? There are those who offer their art for free, why aren't you their fan instead? That would put the greedy bastards out of business.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


You do know that people do both of those things, right?

It is not up to you to decide whether or not someone should sell their art. They concieved the idea, they took the time to produce it, refine it, and market it. If you don't want to pay for the art that cost money you can partake of what is given freely.

If you went to work at your job all week, and did everything to the highest standard you can imagine, then the boss said, "sorry I'm not paying you" what would you do? I mean, if an artist should just give away his time and effort why shouldn't you? Is there a reason that your need for survival is more important than their's?

Piece's of music like Coltrane's A Love Supreme don't come about in an evening. A piece of writing like Stephen King's The Stand takes months of full time work. The great works of art take as much time and effort as a full time job and sometimes more.

I know writer's that have spent months on research just to write one single book. I know musicians that have spent literally years writing a single symphonic piece. I also know a painter that spent nearly four days trying to mix the exactly right shade of blue for a painting.

These people dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of their art. They were dedicated to the point it excluded a full time job. Yet the world should be able to benefit from their work and they should starve. Is that the contention of the pro piracy group?



[edit on 28-6-2010 by MikeNice81]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   


my theme song

lol

I've pirated for over 10 years, and I guess I'll die a pirate.

I refuse to watch Spam tv with 45 mins of commercials for 15 mins of actual programming.

course I don't really give a crap what the mpaa/riaa excuses are.


as the lyrics above say
"Just do what ya want cause a pirate is free"

just as the song says -grin-




[edit on 6/28/2010 by Cito]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


If you buy a song from Itunes and play it in your car it is legal. It is part of Fair Use. Now if you copy the whole cd and give it to your friend then it is illegal. You are hurting the profit potential of the work and comitting theft of intellectual property.

You can buy an RF transmitter to play your Ipod on any FM reciever. It will allow you to take it into any car you are riding in and let everyone enjoy the music.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


Fair enough, we should get rid of the middleman, and we end up paying %90 less for all the above said items, and so it becomes more available even to the poor.... BUT in this world of materialism and greed, how the heck are we gonna get rid of the middle man?

Even the governments are involved as the middle man... so this goes back to the ultimate problem.... LARGE Governments are BAD for people...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by MikeNice81

There is no justification for theft of some one's time, effort, or intellectual property.



There is no justification to charge money for a non scarce good. If you doubt that, try selling bottled water next to a fresh water spring, or refrigerators to any antarctic base.

He probably won't sell it but he still has the right to ask money for it.
Why does it bother you so much that artists are asking money for their creations? There are those who offer their art for free, why aren't you their fan instead? That would put the greedy bastards out of business.


No problem with supporting artists.
Not with x $ for song y, but donations, performances, merchandise (kinda out of the age to buy overpriced T-shirts though).
Big problem with propping up an outdated business model with ridiculous laws.
Every decision to produce X means that there are less resources to produce Y. There is no reason to spend money on data transfer beyond paying your ISP. That opens up a lot of money to spend on more sensible things. (Like 8TB RAIDs)
Publishers havent gotten a cent from me in years.
Artists who rely on publishers dug their own grave.
There is lot of potential now with ACTA I think. Basically Publishers are asking ISPs to cut off their best customers. Not suprisingly ISPs arent very happy about that Idea. We will see how that will end, but I am pretty optimistic that IP will die, or at least return to something aproaching the state it was in the 14th century (5 years monopoly max)



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by debunky
 


Fair enough, we should get rid of the middleman, and we end up paying %90 less for all the above said items, and so it becomes more available even to the poor.... BUT in this world of materialism and greed, how the heck are we gonna get rid of the middle man?

Even the governments are involved as the middle man... so this goes back to the ultimate problem.... LARGE Governments are BAD for people...


The IRAA brought 2 cases to court. Both are in appeal now. All the others were settled out of court by folks scared from all the "downloading is stealing" rethoric.
We can very easily deprive them of their funds to scare people. We just need to stop any transfers of money that dont go directly to the developer/author.
Even the PTB cant put 30% of the population into prison (Spain) even 10% (rest of Europe, propably similiar in the USA) is a strain no country can afford to take, no matter how much hollywood whines.
Alle we need to do is act like homo economicus: choose the best product for the lowest price.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Piece's of music like Coltrane's A Love Supreme don't come about in an evening. A piece of writing like Stephen King's The Stand takes months of full time work. The great works of art take as much time and effort as a full time job and sometimes more.

I know writer's that have spent months on research just to write one single book. I know musicians that have spent literally years writing a single symphonic piece. I also know a painter that spent nearly four days trying to mix the exactly right shade of blue for a painting.

These people dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of their art. They were dedicated to the point it excluded a full time job. Yet the world should be able to benefit from their work and they should starve. Is that the contention of the pro piracy group?



[edit on 28-6-2010 by MikeNice81]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by MikeNice81]


I know me spending 50% of my spare time on researching how to improve technical aspects of my game, and 50% of my spare time on trying to improve the content.
I have been working on it since February 2008.
Could I have spent all that energy on something more profitable? Sure!
Would I be happier? Doubt it.
It was my decision to invest all that energy on something that is infinitely reproducable at 0 cost. I cant force other people to pay money for it. I could only keep it to myself, and that would have been a lot less fun. So, yes, I am happy with that decision. I dont expect people to pay me, just because I was silly enough not to become a plumber. I expect other creatives to do the same, yes.

Edit to add: Goethe had a "Job" too.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
This can't be said too many times... but would you buy a car without a testdrive ? and i don't jsut mean reving up the engine for some thirty seconds at a one-condition-term... you want to check if the airsystem is up, if the radio works proper, if it can wipe the windshield, how much mileage is propably left and see wether or not the engine is held proper...

That's exactly the same for me when speaking of movies, music, art and books. If there is 30 seconds of a piece of music that is appealing in one track out of a whole album, who is to say the rest is ? that is why i want to stream the studioalbum before buying, and if what you made is good, i'll surely also buy it. the same goes for movies and games, and if i don't like the testrun i had on it , i'll just delete it and try-and-buy something else.

I don't see the unfair thing in that. Try and think about having some 12 cd's, 5 movies, and 3 games only to find out that the 30-second sample, 2-minute trailer or one-level-demo only had the best, and that the rest is just s*** completely irrelevant to your interest, that'd be a fortune wasted that you could have used on something else, like a nice dinner, a one-day-outing or what else. Who would really want that ?. That's just how i see this piracy discussion... oh and yeah, it's been said loads of times i take, but i didn't bother reading through the whole thread hehe... lazy-eyes
.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The greedy fat cats in suits are to blame for their own demise. I mean come on - RRP £49.99 for an Xbox 360 game that my son can complete in several hours ? I couldn't justify paying it and wouldn't on principal, and before anybody fires a shot at me, yes I know there are many people to pay out of the revenue and sometimes years of development etc but really ? £50 ? Then the pressure on me to buy because his mates have it is immense !

Remember when music cd's were nearly £20 sometimes for the latest album then along came mp3s and its ' oh no this is affecting the music industry and killing the bands off etc ' blah blah. Rubbish. The supermarkets are now selling chart albums for less than £8 and I don't think any 'artists' will be living in a house as small as mine anytime soon.

They ( the publishers etc) are greedy and deserve to be 'ripped off ' or any other way of putting it you want. If you think that is wrong, then stop and wonder why you had to pay £20 once for something that is now 8. File sharing has brought about this change. They had to adapt to it and the better for all of us that want the music.

That said, my only defence of the video game industry is that it is probably a longer list of names in the credits than music. Maybe I am wrong. If I am please do enlighten me.

(Vive La Revolution ! :lol


Just to add, I'm not trying to condone piracy, theft, whatever but pointing out why it happens and maybe why so few people outside of the industry care about it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I have to agree about crazy game costs, £50 does seem to be ridiculous for some video games at first apperance (call of duty 2 being the main offender here).

But when you look at the production values for the game($50 million!), the something like 5 years of work gone into it and the largest development team, plus the budget for development was larger than any game to date, larger than any film ever made from what I remember too. You are looking at a £5-10 increase over regular prices, which considering the development cost is something like 10x + the average game you can start to see why it is that way.

I feel for you as a parent though, the pressure from your kids must have been a nightmare, i wouldn't want to be in your shoes


At the end of the day it all comes down to this. People who love the films or music they are downloading for free, if they don't realise they are effectively killing off the artist or license they love they are idiots.

Most of the music I love is independent dnb/dubstep... which has a relatively small audience compared to most big names. I support them 100% by buying their music, ensuring my support and more importantly that they will make more in the future!

If you download # for free, you are killing what you love... simple as that!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


Becuase you gave up your spare time others are supposed to give up the way they make a living. How about your job. Would you do it without getting paid?

You are basically saying every artist should go get a 9-5 so they can afford to be an artist because you want to steal their work.

At least we finally got to the real basis of your argument.




top topics



 
91
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join