TPP - yet more internet shackling IP legislation.

[Yugl]

Yes, I agree that the effect varies. I would believe null profit gain to be the rarer of the two. Even if not, I'm not sure how saying that "sometimes it isn't a cost in profits!" undermines the anti-piracy argument. That said, idk who Nicki Minaj is.

[Cream Soda]

You're a lucky man

[Blubbartron]

The argument has reached the same point my roommate and I always reach whenever we argue about this. There isn't (and *cannot* ever) be data about exactly how much industries are really affected by piracy, because of exactly the points Cream Soda has been making. I tend to fall into the neutral/more positive than negative crowd. He's vehemently anti-pirate.

That's also a trend I notice a lot with these arguments. The people who aren't fans of piracy are frothing at the mouth about it (even one downloaded copy is too many, regardless of circumstances). The other side barely registers a 2 on the Care-o-Meter. It'd be interesting to know why that is.

[Petitssk]

There is no conclusion for this, the only solution is a compromise, but good luck with that. Until then, this will drag on forever and ever. At least until someone does invent a computer virus that makes computer explode. I think that was the plot of an episode of Columbo, though I'm not sure anymore.

Anyway, personally, I used to be a lot more hot-headed during these debates, though I've cooled down a lot lately. After all, it's not like I can do a thing about it.

It used to bother me a lot since I'm one of those guys who calculate their food budget well in advance in order to figure out which CDs and other merchandise they'll be able to buy any given month. I feel it's wrong to download things, so I will not engage in any of that, but it still sucks when the people around you just download things and blow their money on overpriced shit from McDonalds or Starbucks and what not. There's doesn't seem to be much appreciation involved in that, not for the producers, not for the people who contribute their share and blow money into the industry by not downloading. That's mainly what irritates me. Well, that and the people who feel like they're heroes for uploading any given thing.

Right now, I mainly enjoy debating since it's interesting to see all the different points raised, though I'm obviously biased. I still think it's nice as long as both sides respect each other.

[Meresgi]

Has anyone in this thread mentioned what Trent Reznor did with his one album where he basically just gave it away for free and said "Well if you wanna donate some $$ then you can" and made a shit ton of money off of it because people enjoyed the product? He made like $1.6 million in a week.

The other side barely registers a 2 on the Care-o-Meter. It'd be interesting to know why that is.

Not sure why I register so low on the Care-o-Meter. I think part of me misses the whole going to a rental store and picking up 1-3 games to bring home for a week, beat the shit out of and then take back..because you can't really do that anymore and all these games have so much fucking DLC to them. Another part is just the fact that i'm poor and it's very convenient to do this just from my PC, instead of going through the hassle of a gamefly membership or hoping the game I want comes to a Redbox near me. I mean I don't play every game that comes out on the market, so I dont think Gamelfy would be cost effective for me (You pay a monthly fee correct?).

1/2 the games I pirate are 2-4 years old and just games I enjoy replaying over and over again, shit some of them I even own or have owned (I own a copy of FF7 for PS1, if I download the PC version am I pirating it?)

Textbooks are another thing, I refuse to fucking pay 200+ dollars for textbooks when i'm already paying out the ass for college classes. Most professors I know don't even like textbooks but the college forces them to have to have one for each of their classes just so they can rake in the money, not to mention the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc editions of a textbook are all the goddamn same with just chapters moved around. I mean how much has art history changed in the past fucking 10 years? Or greek literature?

Well you do need to make a clean comparison because if piracy entailed sacrificing ownership this wouldn't be an issue. When you engage in piracy, ownership is not sacrificed, so a hit on sales occurs.

But if you purchase the book from another student, you just effectively CHEATED the company out of actual money. If you pirate the book from someone who is seeding it, no money changes hands and the original person still has a hardcopy of the book.

Much like how Gamestop works, them selling you used games is a net profit for them since they dont have to pay the publisher for the game every time they sell it and if you ask me, that's much worse then just pirating a game because you're making actual money off someone else's work.

[Byrthnoth]

I guess you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ine...f_NiggyTardust!

A little over $100 grand is substantially below 1.6 mil.

[Meresgi]

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/tre...estseller-2008

Trent Reznor, not Saul Williams. And i've never heard of Williams so not sure how his music is, but $100k is still pretty decent.

[Alvinho]

This has probably been said before, I'm sure.

Shit's stupid. Say I buy some random dvd movie, and my friend asks to borrow it, what's the big deal? None, right? So what's the problem if he's on the other side of the world? Nobody is selling illegal copies of it/profiting from musicians/producers/writers/studios/whathaveyou's hard work. Industry peepz mad because they're not taking my friend's money, but they don't realize he wasn't planning on buying the movie in the first place.

About two years ago, my teacher assigned the class (maybe 20 people) an assignment in which we had to compare the events in the movie "Chicken Run" (2000) to an administrative model in a business. Maybe 2 people had seen it. Where the hell were 18 people supposed to find a physical copy of this within a week?

My girlfriend had an assignment last semester which I didn't pay much attention to what it entailed, but I know the movie "Lorenzo's Oil" was involved. Her class had maybe 30 people, and I'm sure her teacher had at least two other classes. The movie is from 1992; it was a mission and a half trying to find it. We spent maybe one hour going through those special offer bins at the local department store looking for the movie, and luckily found a single copy. One of her classmates found another copy elsewhere, and that's it. What would be a simple solution for a case like this, the case above, or any other similar case, removal of retarded assignment/teachers aside?

I found several copies of Krull (1983) for sale on eBay, which is a good thing because I would never find it anywhere around here (I live in Brazil). Now, if I buy a copy from eBay, it may arrive at my place in about a month, however, as my girlfriend does not speak English, and I doubt the copies listed on eBay come subtitled, or at worse, dubbed, in Portuguese, how could I possibly find a suitable solution without downloading something?

When Clash of the Titans (2010) came out, my girlfriend enjoyed it, and while I agreed the action was passable, I wanted her to watch the 1981 version for comparison. Honestly, I never even tried to look for a physical copy for too many reasons to list. I ended up downloading it, then downloading a Portuguese subtitle file in order to accomplish my mission. Off topic, but she didn't like it. =/

I drive a bit under four and a half miles to go to work from home every morning, and on the way, I kid you not, it is possible to see inumerous street vendors peddling their illegal copies of pretty much anything. Probably over 9000 dvds/games. I refuse to buy them because I don't know where the money is going, and sometimes I am led to believe it finances drug wars (which probably isn't untrue). I did, however, buy a copy of Chicken Run for my report. The city I live in, despite being a huge port city, is kinda backwoodsy (imo), and as such, there's no internet availability at my home; only at work. At the time my project was assigned, I wasn't working, so I couldn't download it. Felt bad, sure, but would have felt worse if I hadn't turn in my paper.

I own a PS2. All my games are originals (I have maybe 15 or so), and all my 64~ PS1 games are originals as well. IMO, game developers actually care to put out a nice product, earning my trust, as well as my money. I spend stupid amounts of money buying these games in dollars, even if I have them available for local currency at about 10% of the original price. Of course, they're also available for free on the internet. I buy originals when they're worth it. I have maybe original 500 CDs, and maybe original 100 dvd/movies. I would love to have enough money to buy every movie I want to watch, but with so much mediocre stuff being produced, it would be senseless to buy it all. If a movie is produced only to be good enough to watch (but not great), or a CD is produced with 3 singles and 12 filler tracks, why should I spend my hard earned money on it? The amount of money earned here is directly proportional to effort put in; 0.

What the RIAA or whoever is failing to realize is that people today have less money to spend. Their profits are dropping, not because of piracy, but because pretty much everyone else's profit is dropping. Global crisis, etc. People are afraid to spend money, and even moreso on frivolous shit, because they don't know if they'll be out of a job tomorrow, or if some market crash is going to close down their company. People are spending less (or have less money to spend), and obviously, first cuts in are for superfluous goods, i.e., dvds, cds, games, books, etc. Piracy or no piracy, the money isn't leaving hands.

Anecdotes, u mad, tl;dr, etc.

[Yugl]

But if you purchase the book from another student, you just effectively CHEATED the company out of actual money. If you pirate the book from someone who is seeding it, no money changes hands and the original person still has a hardcopy of the book.

Much like how Gamestop works, them selling you used games is a net profit for them since they dont have to pay the publisher for the game every time they sell it and if you ask me, that's much worse then just pirating a game because you're making actual money off someone else's work.

I like how people adamantly defending piracy will conveniently overlook how ridiculous this post is. Selling used products (i.e. products originally paid for) is "cheating" the company out of money compared to making a costless copy of the company's product and selling the product. Are you the guy that dumpster dives? Anyways, before I get accused of completely skipping around the subject (Even though this was discussed earlier), lets go over why they're not being cheated out of more money when distributing used items compared to piracy. For used items, the product is bought (Hence, "used"; I know, difficult concept). For pirated products, the product is copied instead of bought. For used items, one sacrifices ownership to redistribute the product. For pirated products, ownership is multiplied, not sacrificed. That means the former undermines redistribution. Lack of redistribution means you have to fight to obtain a limited redistribution and, if not available, are more likely to buy the product. In short, how the hell did you think piracy helped companies more than the resale of used products?

As for the rest of the responses:
- People that don't know how to find movies from 2000
- People that wouldn't buy shit anyways because they never buy anything; that's why you all bitch about Dish, Warner, and Comcast instead of using a Black Box/Steal cable like SeaSoda and own more boxed anime/TV series + movies than myself
- For some reason, you say these movies are good, but not worth owning; yet, you have the compulsive need to own that move... lol
- Problems that have alternative and superior solutions (Free demos/Half screening/Buy digital singles instead of CDs)

Edit: Ah, only saw Byrth's post. Guess you didn't fuck up the sales figures.

[Cream Soda]

SeaSoda? the fux is that.

and I don't have cable, satellite or boxed anime (aside from Rurouni Kenshin, which I got before my first computer and even afterwards have just downloaded the series because it's more convenient to watch without the discs)

[Yugl]

If you represented everyone, I wouldn't find the claim ridiculous. And no, I will not fix your name.

[Cream Soda]

Oh, well all my posts reflect my personal experience with downloading shit. Lol I've no interest in defending anyone else. There are ppl who do it and are fucking shit up and there are people who do it and are like me. For example, I downloaded GTA 4. I don't even have water on in my house right now. There's no way I'd have ever purchased that game, I'd have just went without if I didn't have the option to download.

[hey]

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but wouldn't people downloading what they would have bought cause exactly that to happen, assuming they're content with downloading and don't buy the product as a result? Take textbooks or any media, anything someone really wants that he can download.

You are. I am referring to a situation where they would not have bought it, no matter what. In that particular situation, how does piracy harm anyone?

Competition is one thing, but with piracy and its associated benefits the entire success of a company hinges on whether its customers feel like paying or not.

Tjhe same thing applies to every business.

It's not about providing the best product compared to the competition, it's just a matter of reaching a customer base that actually feels inclined to pay.

How is this different from any other business?

That's quite different from ordinary competition I'd say, as the factors that will make a customer feel inclined to pay are vastly different from the ones you put into an equation where you just want to create the best product on the market.

There is more to a successful business than just having the best product. You don't have to have a good product, if you can get people to buy it for other reasons. See apple, for example.

Yes, but that's not directly related to piracy, is it? I'd rather put that along the lines of plagiarism. If someone writes a story, why should someone else be allowed to officially continue it in whichever way he deems fit? That's what fanfics are for (I just roughly checked google for what was going on there, if I misunderstood anything, please correct me).

No, this has nothing to do with plagiarism. If they did not provide credit for the original, then it would be plagiarism, but why wouldn't we give credit?

Not sure if serious about the fanfics comment. Those are not legal under current copyright law.

In the case of PDF, you both have universal access.

I'd love for you to explain how this is a bad thing. Next you're going to argue that libraries are bad.

[Yugl]

I'd love for you to explain how this is a bad thing. Next you're going to argue that libraries are bad.

I would like for you to explain how that's not a difference between renting and pirating products since that was the point of the conversation.

[hey]

I would like for you to explain how that's not a difference between renting and pirating products since that was the point of the conversation.

It is, and i would consider it benefit of piracy.

[Yugl]

It is, and i would consider it benefit of piracy.

Well then I'm confused as to why you're asking me to extract a ethical dilemma from this difference. The question posed asked how they're different and I answered accordingly.

[Petitssk]

You are. I am referring to a situation where they would not have bought it, no matter what. In that particular situation, how does piracy harm anyone?

It's the context of the situation that's the problem - upload something and I guarantee you won't just have people that wouldn't have bought it anyway downloading it. Even if that weren't the case, how would you write a law that makes piracy legal unless the downloader would have bought it? You can't, so your answer is that copyright should be abolished entirely. However, wouldn't that be an infringement of the producer's freedom? Why should they have to provide their works for free and keep their fingers crossed that someone actually feels like paying?

Tjhe same thing applies to every business. How is this different from any other business? There is more to a successful business than just having the best product. You don't have to have a good product, if you can get people to buy it for other reasons. See apple, for example.

I agree as far as the Apple example is concerned, but the problem with piracy is the economic sector as a whole - if I don't like the lawnmower by company A I'll buy the one from company B because I still need one. In that case, however, they're not giving me an incentive to pay, they're trying to give me an incentive to buy. With piracy, if I want a movie and I don't like it enough to pay, I'll just download it or another movie and no one in the entire industry sees any money from me, that is quite different from all other businesses. The product is readily available regardless of whether I choose to pay - paying becomes optional. Why should the companies have to convince me to pay for anything at all?

No, this has nothing to do with plagiarism. If they did not provide credit for the original, then it would be plagiarism, but why wouldn't we give credit?
Not sure if serious about the fanfics comment. Those are not legal under current copyright law.

Wow, not even incommercial ones? Wasn't aware of that. With commercial ones, I can understand why an author of, say, a book about three childhood friends wouldn't want people officially publishing continuations of the story where the three suddenly start murdering each other, but incommercial ones do feel weird. Nonetheless, I think that an author who practically creates a certain universe should retain the rights to it. It's his story to tell, if he doesn't want other people interfering with that, why should he let them?

[kuronosan]

So what I'm gathering from this discussion is that everyone who's ever made a mix-tape needs to be put in jail.

[hey]

It's the context of the situation that's the problem - upload something and I guarantee you won't just have people that wouldn't have bought it anyway downloading it. Even if that weren't the case, how would you write a law that makes piracy legal unless the downloader would have bought it? You can't, so your answer is that copyright should be abolished entirely. However, wouldn't that be an infringement of the producer's freedom? Why should they have to provide their works for free and keep their fingers crossed that someone actually feels like paying?

Please stop responding with "but people will download things they would have otherwise bought". That is completely irrelevant to the situation being discussed. In the specific situation that is being referred to, how does piracy harm anyone?

t wouldn't have bought it anyway downloading it. Even if that weren't the case, how would you write a law that makes piracy legal unless the downloader would have bought it? You can't, so your answer is that copyright should be abolished entirely. However, wouldn't that be an infringement of the producer's freedom? Why should they have to provide their works for free and keep their fingers crossed that someone actually feels like paying?

No copyright doesn't mean people have to give their work away. They would still be free to sell it. And it also doesn't mean drm wouldn't be allowed.

Why should the companies have to convince me to pay for anything at all?

Because that's how every business works.

Wow, not even incommercial ones?

No. Giving away copyrighted material is no different than selling it.

It's his story to tell, if he doesn't want other people interfering with that, why should he let them?

Because fuck telling people what they are or are not allowed to say. You are arguing in favor of censorship. Too fucking bad if the original author doesn't like my version of their story.

[Alvinho]

Being watchable does not automatically make a movie "good". Thanks to my little cousin, I've spent countless afternoons watching "Bring It On" (2000) and "Dunston Checks In" (1996) among others, and while they were ok the first few times, they're by no means movies I'd want to own. Considering movies I do own ("Goodfellas" (1990), "Casino" (1995), "City of God" (2002), etc.), which I have watched over 20 times each, and can watch again whenever I feel like, I have no problem spending money on, as I already have. Why? Because they're good movies. Great movies. Unlike most of the crap put out by hollywood nowdays, which boil down to a mildly entertaining way to burn two hours. Not to mention the amount of remakes, which almost always, if not always, end up being terribad, or at least worse than the original.

Consumers are becoming wiser on how to spend their hard-earned money in order to get more bang for their buck. The entertainment industry, money-hungry as ever, is becoming more and more mad instead of trying to adapt, because they think there's nothing wrong with their product, which we know to be BS in 99% (not actual figure) of cases.

Also, finding movies from 2000 isn't the issue. Sure, I could look it up on -random ass website that sells movies- and have it delivered to my house, but when, as in my example, there are time constraints, that option flies right out of the window. Also, I had no desire to buy "Chicken Run" and would have probably never watched if it wasn't required by a teacher with bad ideas. The movie ended up not being bad, but certainly not worth 20 bucks. The copy I bought cost me 5, which I felt was adequate, and would have gladly purchased through legal means, had I been given the option that tailored to my needs at the time (needed a store-bought physical copy asap).

I personally think Netflix is great. It helped me watch movies like "The Usual Suspects" (1995), "The Prestige" (2006) and "The Untouchables" (1987). I was a subscriber when I lived in the US, but like I mentioned, not having internet at home kinda kills it. Crackle wasn't around back then, and tbh, I've never used it, so I don't even know what it's like, or what movies they have on there; I've only read/heard about it.

Downloads start to make more sense the further back you go, time-wise. How would one expect to buy a NES, SNES or similar counterparts these days? How about games for them? The industry is not worried about supplying these items for various reasons, cost/benefit probably being the main one, but as a consumer, am I wrong to desire such products? Am I doomed to camp auctions on eBay for used/overpriced/rare products, with no warranty? How about all the songs I heard at Johnny Rocket's? How am I supposed to buy those? Or old-ass movies that aren't as popular as "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Star Wars" (1977), or "Gone With The Wind" (1939)? Am I to hope some online store will sell them? What if they don't? That piece of culture is going to get left behind because I can't readily find it. I found it pretty amazing that I could find a retail copy of "Dr. Zhivago" (1965) at a store the other day. I have no idea how popular it was back in the day, but considering fewer movies were made (no idea, but probably true), I guess it was pretty common then, but not so much now.