How big of a deal is this PIPA shit?

[Greatguardian]

Why would you redefine the word theft, when theft still exists in it's original form, even in regards to the media in question? If I pirated Call of Battle: Modern Warfield 17, it is not 'essentially' the same thing as me stealing a copy from Best Buy.

Redefining, or rather enhancing the definition of the word theft is most definitely necessary in the internet age, where intellectual property can be instantaneously duplicated by anyone. If you bought a shelf from an Amish man in the year 1492, and went and built an identical shelf to give away to your friend, could you say that you stole the shelf? Not really. You built the shelf. But did you steal the design? Sure. That's the issue here. Intellectual property. Ownership of a design.

When you buy a Toyota Prius, are you free to do whatever the hell you want with it? Well, mostly, yes. Does that mean you can start manufacturing Toyota Prius' in your basement and giving them away to friends? No. That's theft of intellectual property, of the design of a Toyota Prius. The car is yours. The design is not.

[hey]

You don't need to change the definition of a word when to cover a "new" concept, when we already have a number of appropriate words.

Also, in 1492 there was no such thing as copyright, so i could have legally "stolen" any design i wanted.

[Greatguardian]

You don't need to change the definition of a word when to cover a "new" concept, when we already have a number of appropriate words.

Sure. Maybe I don't. Theft still works. Intellectual theft, in this case. Or, theft of intellectual property.

You know, the thing this has been about since day 1?

Maybe this whole thread should have just started with a definition of intellectual property.

[hey]

Sure. Maybe I don't. Theft still works. Intellectual theft, in this case. Or, theft of intellectual property.

You know, the thing this has been about since day 1?

Maybe this whole thread should have just started with a definition of intellectual property.

It doesn't really work. Theft refers to something entirely different.

Regardless of the semantics though, i still stand by piracy not being a problem at all, and in fact being a good thing, while copyright is bad.

[Greatguardian]

It doesn't really work. Theft refers to something entirely different.

Regardless of the semantics though, i still stand by piracy not being a problem at all, and in fact being a good thing, while copyright is bad.

I never said piracy was bad. In this particular case, it helps a lot more than it hurts. You can never undervalue the benefit of free marketing.

That doesn't mean it's not theft. Protip: The theft is not of the object, but of the design of the object - the intellectual work. I'm not sure if that can be made any clearer.

[Corrderio]

The more I see this shit the more I laugh.

I'm the typical "If I like it, I'll buy it" type of person, but it's flat out pathetic how they're overreacting to this. Blacklisting a site because someone posted something like a game stream or themselves singing karaoke? Are you fucking kidding me? Those game streams are usually the deciding factor if I think the game is worthwhile to get or not.

Thankfully everyone seems against this. Can't blame them either due to the amount of bullshit needed to enforce it.

[Insanecyclone]

Did this shit pass or is it still up in the air?

[MaachaQ]

I've been on the side of pirating for quite a long time now, and I believe it really does benefit the industries involved rather than hurt them.

I used to trade VHS/SVHS tapes of subtitled Anime with people all over the world (link is my ancient website), because those titles had no English licensee at the time (and some still don't). Without trading those VHS tapes, I never would have seen some shows I really liked, and later bought either the official US bilingual release or imported LD/DVD from Japan. Those VHS tapes became free advertising to a community who otherwise might never have heard of those titles and never would have spent money on them. Anime companies now watch which Anime is popular on the download sites and use that information when they go to negotiate contracts for bringing those titles to the US.

I have only ever downloaded games which I have already bought and I need a new copy of for various reasons. I'm not going to pay $50 for a new copy of Mario Kart because my kids happened to scratch the disc, making it unplayable (I tried Disc Doctor, it only made the problem worse). If there were some way to send in my scratched disc for a new one, I'd do it.

For movies I've tried to only download titles that I either already own but don't currently have access to (my Planet of the Apes boxset is at my parent's house in the US, I'm currently in Korea; I downloaded the movies to watch after seeing the reboot this summer at the theater), or titles that I have access to in another form that isn't as good of quality (We have a VoD service, but some movies are crap video quality and might be dubbed in Korean). Some movies I have downloaded because I was interested in them but wasn't sure I wanted to spend money on, and if I liked them well enough I did go and buy a DVD/Blu-ray copy of later on.

Music is one area where I have downloaded quite alot more than I've purchased, but most of the things I download would not be available from any of the subscription streaming sites anyway. I listen to alot of J-pop and K-pop; when I'm at home I can sometimes find streaming internet radio sites that play these, but when I'm outside I listen on my iPod Classic and really have no option other than having downloaded the songs and put them on my iPod beforehand. My iPhone battery dies far too quickly already without playing music on it, it would go even more quickly if I tried to stream music over 3G. I have a Platinum subscription to Audible.com ($250ish per year) for my audiobook needs, very rarely will I download an audiobook from anywhere else.

tl;dr = "Piracy" is more like free advertising for me, the movie/game/music companies are not losing any money from it in my case, and probably make a decent amount when I like something and buy it after having previewed it.

[Yugl]

Until someone manages to conduct a study on the issue (Which is nigh impossible), neither side can make a claim on the "It's like free advertising" line. There are people that will buy a product they would not have if they weren't able to illegally obtain said product prior to buying the product. There are also people who just pirate the fuck out of everything and never drop a dime even if they like the product. To say you can generalize about the sum total based on your personal experience is absolutely ridiculous. At the least though, the people arguing that piracy is some sort of "test trial" have to contend with the fact that it will always be an irrational perspective if they subsequently maintain that piracy does not cost the company (Or whoever you wish to use) money. That is because eliminating the latter leaves almost no reason to purchase the product unless quality is an issue.

[hey]

Until someone manages to conduct a study on the issue (Which is nigh impossible), neither side can make a claim on the "It's like free advertising" line. There are people that will buy a product they would not have if they weren't able to illegally obtain said product prior to buying the product. There are also people who just pirate the fuck out of everything and never drop a dime even if they like the product. To say you can generalize about the sum total based on your personal experience is absolutely ridiculous. At the least though, the people arguing that piracy is some sort of "test trial" have to contend with the fact that it will always be an irrational perspective if they subsequently maintain that piracy does not cost the company (Or whoever you wish to use) money. That is because eliminating the latter leaves almost no reason to purchase the product unless quality is an issue.

And yet, it doesn't even matter if it hurts the industy (which it may, no one can say for sure, but if it does, it's not by some huge margin). Competition benefits the consumers. The entertainment industry does not have a right to profit. No one does. And if they cannot succeed because of competition, they do not deserve to succeed.

Let's assume for a second that piracy does hurt the entertainment industries. Why is that a bad thing? Why should we try to stop it? McDonalds hurts Burger King by competing. Should we also ban McDonalds so Burger King can sell more burgers at a higher price? Burger King would benefit hugely from this. But guess what? Everyone else loses. The loss of competition means you have fewer choices at higher prices.

[Yugl]

And yet, it doesn't even matter if it hurts the industy (which it may, no one can say for sure, but if it does, it's not by some huge margin). Competition benefits the consumers. The entertainment industry does not have a right to profit. No one does. And if they cannot succeed because of competition, they do not deserve to succeed.

Let's assume for a second that piracy does hurt the entertainment industries. Why is that a bad thing? Why should we try to stop it? McDonalds hurts Burger King by competing. Should we also ban McDonalds so Burger King can sell more burgers at a higher price? Burger King would benefit hugely from this. But guess what? Everyone else loses. The loss of competition means you have fewer choices at higher prices.

Sometimes (Read: All the time) I think you glance over my posts, dummy the post down to "For or against", and then rebuttal what you *think* is being argued if the post is against you. Other than saying you may or may not maintain that piracy costs the company or industry, your post is irrelevant to the point I'm making. To simplify the matter, I only made two points:
- Neither side can make claims of whether piracy is or is not like "free advertising"
- If you maintain that piracy does not damage the industry or company, then it is irrational for people to buy products they have pirated; in other words, why the fuck would you? Hint: The reason the antecedent is there is so you cannot rebuttal with "Because I want to support the industry"

Your particular post essentially amounts to the statement that unrestricted competition helps everyone (Except the competing industries/companies), which is false (And I'm sure anyone familiar with the history of labor can give you reasons why that is so). Furthermore, comparing piracy to a competing food chain is interesting because the proper analogy is "McDonalds buys one burger from McDonalds, replicates the burger 39827837827328372x, and then sells the replications for free." If the absurdity of the comparison hasn't become apparent yet, the issue is that you're telling people to compete with a competitor that sells the exact product they're selling, but for free. In short, you're demanding that people compete with free. Unless you're paying people to take your product, I doubt you're going to beat that.

[hey]

Unless you're paying people to take your product, I doubt you're going to beat that.

And yet, they do.

Competition is competition, even if one competitor is giving the product away for free.

Sometimes (Read: All the time) I think you glance over my posts, dummy the post down to "For or against", and then rebuttal what you *think* is being argued if the post is against you. Other than saying you may or may not maintain that piracy costs the company or industry, your post is irrelevant to the point I'm making. To simplify the matter, I only made two points:

I actually was just saying that your claims are irrelevant.

If you must know though, i agree with your first claim (as i said already), and disagree with the other, as originally stated, but mostly agree with how you rephrased it (specifically that it is irrational, rather than that there is almost no reason to do so). However, i ignored it before because i did not care about it, and was not interested in debating the point.

Also, if you want, i can change the analogy from McDonalds to a soup kitchen. They compete with restuarants, grocery stores, etc, and give their products away for free. Is that wrong? Is that something that should be stopped?

[Yugl]

The second claim is relevant since it puts pro-piracy people in a dilemma. They either accept that piracy damages the industry or accept that the "It's free advertising" thesis is based on irrationality.

[MaachaQ]

I was just posting my personal experience with "piracy." I make no claims for what other people do, but I must say that at least the friends I made when I was active in the fansubbing community seemed to feel the same way I do and many have bought the official releases of series they liked after they were released in the US. They also stopped offering titles that had gotten an official english-language release, though current fansubbers who make digital files rather than tapes don't seem to stop offering titles once they are licensed or released like the old fansubbers did. Some shows I have even bought multiple times, like Tenchi Muyo and Revolutionary Girl Utena. Here's my database of video titles I own, freshly updated, if you look back at my old fansub list you'll see quite a bit of overlap.

I also have experience with making fan-videos for various shows, which are also free advertising for companies. AMVs are a great introduction to anime shows for people, and also can help sell the music. I made a few myself, even getting a copyright notice on one, but it wasn't pulled from YouTube; the company only made a claim and put advertising on my video. If this new law passes not only would YouTube likely pull my videos, which should be covered under fair-use because they transform the work, but I myself could be held liable. I own all the media I used in my videos, and I make no money from hosting them on YouTube or AMV.org for other people to view and share.

If I was in the US I would probably have a subscription to GameFly and Netflix, maybe even to Spotify, negating the need to download most of the things I have gotten recently, but because I'm living abroad right now I really have no legal option for getting the content I want in a timely manner.

PS - I highly recommend Collectorz.com software for keeping track of media I own.

[hey]

The second claim is relevant since it puts pro-piracy people in a dilemma. They either accept that piracy damages the industry or accept that it the "It's free advertising" thesis is based on irrationality.

Not really. There are more factors involved in choosing where to acquire something than just price. Some of those factors are indeed irrational, but nonetheless, they still factor in.

though current fansubbers who make digital files rather than tapes don't seem to stop offering titles once they are licensed or released like the old fansubbers did.

This depends on the group. Some do, some don't. Many groups will stop subbing a show if it is licensed. None stop offering ones already released because they cannot really do so. Once it is uploaded, it cannot be taken back. Additionally, another thing to consider is that official releases tend to be localized, rather than simply translated. And some are only offered with dubs, and no subtitles. Thus in many cases, fansubs are still the only way to watch the show as it was originally intended.

[Uzor]

You seem to have a very skewed view on the matter (what with comparing "buying your own CD's and burn movies to it being comparable to Mc. Donalds making their own hamburgers"). A soup kitchen is a better comparison, but still not correct. A soup kitchen doesn't compete with grocery stores, since soup kitchens give low-quality food away in small ammounts to homeless people, whereas a grocery store allows you to buy whatever you want to make your own food. It's not at all comparable, since people who have money don't go to soup kitchens to get food as the food is really bland.

A soup kitchen is to grocery stores what a movie trailer in cam-quality is to a full BlueRay movie. They don't compete with each other. At all.

[hey]

So basically, what you're saying is that homeless people would just all starve to death if there were no soup kitchens, they wouldn't find some money to buy food?

[guartz]

Redefining, or rather enhancing the definition of the word theft is most definitely necessary in the internet age, where intellectual property can be instantaneously duplicated by anyone. If you bought a shelf from an Amish man in the year 1492, and went and built an identical shelf to give away to your friend, could you say that you stole the shelf? Not really. You built the shelf. But did you steal the design? Sure. That's the issue here. Intellectual property. Ownership of a design.

When you buy a Toyota Prius, are you free to do whatever the hell you want with it? Well, mostly, yes. Does that mean you can start manufacturing Toyota Prius' in your basement and giving them away to friends? No. That's theft of intellectual property, of the design of a Toyota Prius. The car is yours. The design is not.

Your making I.P sound more logical in it's current state then it is.

Following your example, all I would have to do, is, say, add a bumper sticker to that Toyota Prius, call it Smoyota Diyus and the design would legally be mine, free to distribute, at profit or for free.

[Greatguardian]

If Soup Kitchens served Olive Garden food, that they obtained from Olive Garden, then they'd pretty much kill off Olive Garden.

Comparing Soup Kitchens to normal restaurants in this context is fucking retarded unless you also infer that they are serving the exact same dish, which the soup kitchen did not create. You're doing it on purpose and it's fucking annoying.

[Uzor]

So basically, what you're saying is that homeless people would just all starve to death if there were no soup kitchens, they wouldn't find some money to buy food?

You seriously need to go back to school and learn some reading comprehension. Or read more than one phrase and assume people are saying things they're not saying. Nowhere am I claiming that homeless people would starve to death without soup kitchens. Throughout this entire discussion you've read things that just aren't there.