Anonymous - Operation Pirate Bay

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by minkmouse

 

File sharing is not true piracy. These are people sharing their own copies of a product, that's all it is.

The companies can't claim money on it so they have to make stuff up and make it seem like a bad thing so they can force consumers to buy their product and get richer.

And to top it off, most of that money is not going to the artists, it's going to the lawyers and the people who own the rights to the works.

edit on 3-10-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

Next time read the agreement that you make when you purchase software you agree to not make or distribute copies. You only purchase the right to use the products you don't own the rights to it. And many artist self promote and own the rights to the music they make.

If I download a torrent I am not entering any legal agreement with any artist. No money has been exchanged and no contract has been signed. As far as I am concerned they may have an issue with the original purchaser of the product but not with me.
I am fully convinced that many actually want their product to be shared in order to get the "hook" in for the release of version 1.2 of whatever software they are promoting. They have the ability to prevent sharing if they truly want to.

While I admit I may have downloaded some stuff in the past, I don't kid myself,I know its piracy.

If everyone pirated everything, the would be no incentive for anything to be produced, as there would be no profit whatsoever.

The entertainment industry brought this on themselves, bad movies made just to ring in that first months ticket sales, bad video games made with the same strategy in mind, now is the age of pick and choose and that will be the future, ill give my money to those who gave me quality art.

I see this from two different perspectives:

1) As a person who gets just about every book I read from the library (I know, how quaint). I used to buy books then realized how insane that was when it dawned on me I can get all but the most obscure titles for free (and now I work in a university so the pickin's are even better). I'm not giving the writer any money to access their work. Someone else did - once - and now it's read by thousands of people, also for free. I don't get to keep the book, but I've enjoyed it without compensating the artist.

2) As a person who is $50 grand in the hole (and counting) for the movie I made. Believe me when I say I'm not some big shot producer. I feel every penny of that expense, deeply. We're just now beginning self-distribution and were warned up and down not to make it available online. The problem is it's hard to get people to leave the house to see an indie film - only obscure theaters will show them and marketing is tough. People are also reluctant to purchase a physical copy without seeing it first. But online is extremely risky, especially if you want a distribution deal some day. Once that movie gets pirated no one wants it. And while I do find it flattering to have people enjoy it enough to make copies for all of their friends, that enjoyment didn't come cheap, or easy.

That's my two cents.

I'm all for piracy because the system is broken. The movie, music, tv, and game industries are charging more and more each year while ripping off old ideas. How many remakes of movies have been coming out lately? TV shows which are designed according to a successful formula of another show. Video games that are just a previous game with better graphics and poor single player replay value. And finally music that is well, crap and entrenched in a model where the artist only sees 5% of the sale profits.

That said, I don't pirate anything. Part of my stance that 99.99% of what's produced is junk means I also have no interest in watching/playing/listening to it. It doesn't bother me in the least though that millions are out there downloading this stuff, I want more to do it because if enough do it the system will be forced to become more competitive rather than embracing it's complacency.

Originally posted by dayve
reply to post by Therian

 

If they stuck with cassette tapes n VHS this wouldn't be an issue...

No even back then they had anti-piracy campaigns against "home-taping," i.e. holding a tape recording up to the radio when a song you wanted to hear came on. They never let up.

I dont agree with downloading stuff to make money from it. I do agree with downloading stuff for your own personal use only. After all, I didnt tell the studios to fork out millions of dollars in salaries to big name stars for a few weeks work to make the movie, cut the salaries to a hundred thousand instead of fifty million and they will make more of a profit

I've got to admit, I'm starting to feel a bit different about this than I once did. Now that I'm starting to write little apps and programs myself, well....piracy isn't the punch line to a joke anymore. Each rip off of something I make is an average $25 I'm not seeing to keep the bills paid and stay in school.

Now, am I all self-righteous and about to say I've never and never would either? Umm... lol... No. I've sailed my little boat into the Pirate Bay a time or two....but I'm definitely losing the ability to lie to myself or make weak justifications for what it actually is.

If a sex offender or politician (you know...scum of the earth type) moved into your neighborhood and had nice stuff, is it okay to go burgle their house when they aren't home just because of their identity as the owner of that house which isn't yours to burgle?

Of course not....... So it's sounding weaker and weaker in my ears that the argument is made about it just being the big Music or Movie companies. That's true to a point......but about as valid as justifying a larger burglary by saying it's just the big bad insurance company paying it all in the end.

reply to post by dayve


Actually it was an issue back in the 80's as well. Someone even made a wiki about it.

It's almost comical.

Home Taping Is Killing Music

reply to post by Aazadan


Change doesn't start by starving the current system; it begins with artists who embrace sharing their music for free. The only art that should be paid for is commissioned and performance work; if an artist creates a piece of music, film, or art out of his or her own accord, s/he should not charge people to witness it from their homes. There is money in exhibitions, tours, and screenings, though when something costs nothing to produce (i.e. media in a digital form), nothing should be charged for it.

I'm saying this as an artist; art and business don't mix well whatsoever. Art focuses on expression, whereas business focuses on profit. Expression isn't always profitable, hence why "art" has gone to s***. Should a photographer charge for commercial licenses to his work? Definitely. Should a musician charge for a physical CD? Yes, because time and money go into producing a physical CD. Should a performer charge tickets for a show? Of course, because performance is work. Should a painter charge to create a painting for someone? Of course. Should people pay to visit art exhibits and museums? This depends. Exhibitions, sure, because the artists are displaying their work. Museums are a bit iffy because they profit off of other people's work which they are either given or have purchased.

Now, does a photographer have the right to charge someone to simply view or download his photos in a digital format for personal use, say to mess around with in Photoshop or set as a desktop background? Does a painter have the right to charge someone in exchange for a view of one of his or her paintings on google images? Does a musician have a right to charge someone for simply listening to their song online or downloading it for personal use? I think not.

For it to be piracy, a thief must be making a profit. If something is downloaded for personal use and the downloader doesn't try to pass it off as his/her own work or make money off of it, it's not copyright infringement.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

If a sex offender or politician (you know...scum of the earth type) moved into your neighborhood and had nice stuff, is it okay to go burgle their house when they aren't home just because of their identity as the owner of that house which isn't yours to burgle?

Of course not....... So it's sounding weaker and weaker in my ears that the argument is made about it just being the big Music or Movie companies. That's true to a point......but about as valid as justifying a larger burglary by saying it's just the big bad insurance company paying it all in the end.

Digital piracy isn't theft though; if someone has something nice and you have a magical machine that can duplicate that nice thing, who exactly is it hurting? You're not stealing from the sex offender politician, you're not borrowing, so what are you doing? You're taking 1 and making 2, or 4, or 8, or 80. In a sense it does hurt app developers and lesser known artists, but piracy plays a critical role in keeping larger companies from putting out trash products or overcharging.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Well, now I'm in a tough spot on this topic. On one hand, I'm the worst kind of hypocrite to act harsh and judgmental about others pirating...although my own stuff is a whole different thing. Heck.. it's just nickle/dime stuff I do now anyway. Not worth mentioning beyond the new insight it brings to the other side of the equation.

At the same time, to call it something other than pirating is simply justifying and rationalizing. I mean that's fine to a point and thats about where it's fair to argue mitigation for defining 'wrong' in this case. It's still taking a product you didn't make.....someone HAD intended to be paid for...and consciously deciding you aren't going to pay for it.

I don't dare say NONE of us are above getting the occasional ..borrowed...and 'I mean to buy it if I like it, really I do'...piece of software or game. Someone wayy out there will pipe up and say they've been in computers since the punch card and never pirated a thing. So..I'll say 99% of us know the topic personally at some level. It's not worth the lawsuits and charges they file on college kids and soccer moms, of course not. ....but lying to our own selves about what we're doing...is kinda bad?

piracy for us, but when corporate interests screw the people over as has been done for the last 80 years of corporations......we say business as usual....


Yeah its piracy.....like we have been robbed, so shall we rob. I will not say it's a justification....I will say it is right and to be expected by us...we are not comatose drones yet...we do have sentiment and a sense of accountability.

They live in Babylon. Dog eat dog world they made in excess, eye for an eye then.

You have stolen from me, so I will steal from you.

Devil to devils and God to gods.

Artists make plenty of money, if they wanted to make mega money, then they should have gone into business, there that is the only purpose. Look what money hungry "stars" have done to baseball. cinema, journalism....ect

screw that. We enjoy your "art".....and will contribute in most cases. Concerts, movie tickets we will pay for after knowing they don't plan on robbing us of our money with some hap hazard BS they threw together for that specific purpose....updated software....ect,

You don't like it ?, then study business and become a promoter.....or create things other people will enjoy for that joy......like many do already. If you listen to your promoter....then you are a sell out and prove that underground music and cinema is better for that one principal, it represents us, and we it.

Soft ware....I need to try it out and your demos are not enough in most cases and often are misleading....

then there is outright piracy....like stealing MS OS.....theft of windows.....I paid for a couple....very over priced and full of BS they made inferior on purpose.

So I paid 500+ dollars for vista....turns out it was a BS version of win 7, stripped down and full of problems....but they forced me to get rid of XP....ok...but you will not get another 500+ dollars for win7....NO. I will steal it like you stole my 500 dollars for vista which you forced upon me, knowing that soon you would release the actual version it was intended to be, win7.....

SO you got my 500 bucks for development.....and I got my better than XP OS......that is fair to me....so good bye.

reply to post by dayve

even when cassettes were around there was still semi decent bootlegs of live shows and originals

##snipped##

In terms of music, the stuff I listen to is very hard to find and not always worth the asking price. If I like a band, though, I'll support them in other ways like buying and wearing their merchandise, going to their shows, buying them a drink, etc. I listen to a lot of metal and hardcore, which has almost no money in it; naturally most of the people in the bands I listen to are down to earth dudes who aren't in music to make a living; it's something they like doing and sharing with the world.

In terms of e-books, I'm not much of a reader so I'll likely download something, skim through it, and forget about it; if I'm not going to read the book, why pay for it?

Regarding e-learning videos, I just don't have the money to buy them, and, like e-books, don't view them very often. Some products charge around $600, and I'm not going to spend that much money on anything unless I know the value I'm going to get out of it.

As far as video games and programs go, I've never been a fan of downloading cracked versions of professionally made games or programs. I mostly play free-to-play games because most of the games that are coming out aren't worth the $60 they charge for them and the new DLC model reinforces laziness; why release a full game when you can release something subpar and charge $20 per DLC pack to expand on it? Cracked programs tend to have a lot of problems, though I might pirate a cracked program to try it out, especially if it's very expensive or high-end.

In terms of the creative process, if a kid in the ghetto wants to learn photoshop, but can't afford it, should he or she not pursue doing so because it's immoral? Isn't it more immoral for Adobe to charge hundreds of dollars for a new version of it's creative suit with VERY MINOR IMPROVEMENTS and backwards compatibility issues? It's ridiculous that these companies have the nerve to swindle us so shamelessly.

I don't download movies either because the trash that Hollywood peddles as "film" is unbearable, plus I have access to some premium channels that offer movies for free.

I strongly respect actual copyright laws, however, and never use another person's work for commercial purposes without getting permission from said person. This, in my eyes, is theft, not downloading for personal use or trial.

heres the thing money for cd, book or print/painting i get that shur you have it physically as the artist/ author/ intended
but download cd/photos and you have NO cover art NO liner notes NO BOOK, no painting all you have is a weak digital file sucks , if anything it helps the artist/Author!

and beside a dollar a song is kinda steep for just a file with track on it does not even compare an ALBUM or OIL PAINTING.
free down loads are just that free and dont have much value as i always said i would never check out some truly great artists if had to buy their work right from the start . never
how come people dont undrstand that?

I'm just saying...
If you upload something to the internet, know that it WILL get replicated/copied/stolen.
I think it goes with out saying. It comes with the territory.

If I open up a store and don't install security locks, and I get robbed, it's MY fault. I basically asked for it.
These artists should know what kind of land the internet can be.

Plus, wouldn't you want as much people hearing your stuff?? Many people will buy your music, and many won't. it's a win/win: the ones that buy your music contribute to your wealth - the ones that don't, have heard your music and can now spread the word about your talent.

Just saying, anything goes on the net. Don't be shocked when somebody burns you.

stealing means depriving someone else of their property.

first, when you buy a dvd or a cd, it is no longer the property of the artist or the publisher. it is yours.

just like the $29.99 is theirs not yours.

if you can't tell them what to spend the $29.99 on, they have no right to tell you what to do with the dvd or cd.

if you want to share your dvd with the world and put it online to fileshare its your right. it's your property. you are not making copies or selling it. your sharing the dvd, which belong to you.

going back to theft, the only one who can legitimately claim theft is the owner of the dvd, not the former owner, the artist or publisher.

since by downloading a movie or a cd that he is willing to share with you and you are not depriving him of the possession of the physical dvd/cd or property, no theft has occurred.

artists are trying to get you to pay for something that has already been paid for. that's greedy. and guilt trip you to boot.

ask what's left of the beatles, they don't even own their own songs. so music can be bought and not belong to the artist.

theft is when you take something from someone and they can no longer have /sell that product/object. file sharing "steals" nothing as people already have the copy and are sharing/copying and spreading. if you were to physically break into servers/store/warehouse and steal a copy,rip a copy from mainframe ect then you are stealing, file sharing is just that, everyone shares a piece of work they already OWN, no different than handing a book to a friend so someone can get homework done with out buying a book, omg lost profit, go and arrest everyone in a library!!! nothing is stolen.
besides the fact they aren't not selling you an original, they are all selling copies themselves, lol its the biggest farce in 21st century. what is happening is they are losing "POTENTIAL" profits, they are not being stolen from as they still have their original copy. IM not really into it anymore, but IM not against it either.
but because we live in a fascist society you see dumbass judges awarding 240 million to giants like sony against mothers/kids downloading copies of copies of copies that SOMEONE ALREADY BOUGHT AND SHARED! and now its become a business all to itself, companies will put out crap music and games with a tracking device, usually hire a third party to do tracking then send out thousands of cease and desist actions to ISPs, to do dirty work for them, once they round up the names, off to court you go. so allot of companies just put complete crap out now and half finished games knowing they will bunk but prolly make some money on the side suing people, YAY AMERIKA
but in the end, no one has really stolen anything unless the copy being shared, is stolen from a store, or the head quarters of the business lol, i love the topic really, they gave companies rights to manufacture, cd/laser disc, tape, 8 track, video cameras ect ect,,, they make copies in the hundreds to millions at a fraction (pennies in some cases) but the minute you copy something you already bought....ohhh wait a minute you cant copy your copy! IM sorry but once i bought the cd ITS FREAKIN MINE ALL MINE ALL MINE ALL MINE and ill copy copy copy my hearts content out sharing MY copy if i like to just like i do when i lend my friends my movies and music cds, or make them play lists cds, copying music from cd's I OWN totally legal, so should file sharing unless they can trace original source to a stolen copy, its a complete fabrication of the truth and they know it. i also liken it to taking pictures of artwork that you cant afford/isnt for sale, oops guess that artist should sue!!!

(p.s) you can take as many pics and copy any of my work as much as you like, my schooling is paid off finally lol, so i share with everyone, will i tell you who i am nope, but if in boston /providence area, good chance you may have already "copied" my work...ohhh nooos what will i ever do..not sue thats for sure hehe.