TPP - yet more internet shackling IP legislation.

[hey]

Were the anti pirates against recording on blank VHS or songs from the radio with a cassette back in the day?

Or, for those that think a loss of a sale is bad: are you against selling used movies/games/etc?

[Yugl]

Honestly, i'm not entirely convinced this is true. And even if it is, you'll need to explain why it's a problem.

Because that undermines the price point claim against piracy (That the product costs too much).

[Petitssk]

You are going to have to explain how piracy can possibly hurt anyone in situations where the loss of sales are exactly $0.

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.

Furthermore (please respond to the above before this), why is a loss of a sale even a bad thing? A capitalist would argue that competition is a good thing, and that if a business cannot make a profit, then it is because it's a poor business, and it does not deserve to succeed. Why does this apply to everything but the entertainment, software, etc industries?

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. 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. 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.

No, it is exactly the same. In order for someone to be free to release improvements/sequels/spin offs of anything they think needs an improvement/sequel/spinoff, they also need to be able to release the original (or something so close to it, that no one could ever tell them apart) too.

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).

[Cream Soda]

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.

Not if they bought it used from another person. For example if I buy a used Biology book from a kid who took it last semester, how is this any different to the book company than me simply downloading a .pdf of the book? They gain nothing in both cases.

[Yugl]

It's different because your universal access to the book deprives him of universal access to the book. In the case of PDF, you both have universal access. Even if the case were that you both "shared" the rights to the book, access to the book is restricted by convenience and conditions that let you share the book (being within the same room at the same time etc.). Such inconveniences and differences in access increase temptation to obtain the book if one has the means. In short, if piracy worked like book sharing, me downloading the song would deprive the original uploader. I don't think companies would bitch as much if that were the case.

[Cream Soda]

And assuming this is someone who wants no access to the book afterwards. If he's not repeating the class, I don't see him going "hey man can I come over and study with you from that book you bought from me?" but even with that outlandish scenario, it still provides no benefit to the company, only to the person who you bought it used from.

[Jeherrit]

You mean the way that video game companies didn't complain about used game sales?

[Yugl]

And assuming this is someone who wants no access to the book afterwards. If he's not repeating the class, I don't see him going "hey man can I come over and study with you from that book you bought from me?" but even with that outlandish scenario, it still provides no benefit to the company, only to the person who you bought it used from.

I don't know if you saw the edit, but even if access isn't an issue in the case of the book, it is an issue in the case of piracy. Downloading a book from someone else does not deprive them of access. Subsequent downloading does not deprive you of the book. If you want a clean comparison, you would need a scenario in which original ownership is deprived by giving away the product. Used video games are a legal and comparable market. If you sacrificed access to an mp3 you gave to someone else, you would make a clean comparison. That does not happen during piracy though. In short, deprivation of access (or lack thereof) is a difference between giving away used games/books and piracy.

[Cream Soda]

A "clean" comparison isn't really relevant to my interests here. The result is what I'm interested in. The post I was replying to was talking about taking away a book sale from that company. I was saying it's more similar to taking away a book sale from another student, which may hurt that particular student because you didn't buy his book(and he may have to sell it to someone else for cheaper to get them to buy it), but has no effect on the company itself in comparison. Because if you bought from him, they make the same amount as if you pirate it, nothing

[Petitssk]

Not if they bought it used from another person. For example if I buy a used Biology book from a kid who took it last semester, how is this any different to the book company than me simply downloading a .pdf of the book? They gain nothing in both cases.

Pretty much what Yugl already said, though I do think that this is a very interesting argument. I can relate to it since a large majority of the Doujinshi and CDs I buy won't be getting reprints and I'm forced to buy them used as a result, but with products that only do have limited use it's a somewhat different situation.

Nonetheless, I agree with what Yugl said about universal access, seeing how there is the chance of textbooks being used again in the future - if the second hand seller needs to check something later on he will need to buy the book again since he no longer has it. Either that or he borrows it; regardless of which he opts for, it's going to be inconvenient, which, as Yugl put it, is an incentive for an actual purchase or the decision to keep the book instead of selling it.

Either way, it would be naive to think that no publisher actively minds the idea of second hand sales, though; see the debates about video games etc., though I'm not really sure where my position is regarding that matter. I'd definitely like to see producers getting benefits, though that's primarily influenced by me wanting to influence Doujin Circles whose products won't be getting reprints.

[Yugl]

A "clean" comparison isn't really relevant to my interests here. The result is what I'm interested in. The post I was replying to was talking about taking away a book sale from that company. I was saying it's more similar to taking away a book sale from another student, which may hurt that particular student because you didn't buy his book(and he may have to sell it to someone else for cheaper to get them to buy it), but has no effect on the company itself in comparison. Because if you bought from him, they make the same amount as if you pirate it, nothing

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. To understand why, consider a case in which piracy acted like used game/book sales. If a downloader wants a product, they must find someone willing to sacrifice the product. So the amount available for download declines and whenever a download occurs, previous ownership dissipates. That means you're unlikely to obtain the product initially or in a timely manner. Urgency ultimately increases the probability that the downloader will, instead, buy the product. I guess you could also say supply/demand.

[Cream Soda]

Again though, you're hindering sales from the kid you buy it from, not the company.

If you want to look at it from another perspective. Let's say I borrow the book and not buy it. Download the .PDF and delete it when I'm done with the class. At the end of the day, there are the same number of copies floating around.

"Hey bro, you're not taking calculus this semester, let me borrow your calculus book" "Alright, just give it back when you're done. I have no intention of looking at the thing this semester, I'm too busy with classes I'm actually taking"

[Yugl]

Again though, you're hindering sales from the kid you buy it from, not the company.

If you want to look at it from another perspective. Let's say I borrow the book and not buy it. Download the .PDF and delete it when I'm done with the class. At the end of the day, there are the same number of copies floating around.

"Hey bro, you're not taking calculus this semester, let me borrow your calculus book" "Alright, just give it back when you're done. I have no intention of looking at the thing this semester, I'm too busy with classes I'm actually taking"

It is sales from the company because the person that would normally have to wait until someone gave away the game or song for free now buys the game because he or she can't stand waiting. There's no problem with the scenario you set up because that's not how piracy operates at all. It's not the case that the uploader says "Ok, you can borrow this but give me back" or "OK, first come first served, this shit is free!". The uploader just puts an infinite number of copies and no matter how many get that copy, he or she can access his or her own copy.

[Kaisha]

Can't we just cut & paste the 'is piracy lost money/corporations in the right/wrong bla bla bla' bits from the ACTA thread into this one so we can get that part out and over with?

[Cream Soda]

It is sales from the company because the person that would normally have to wait until someone gave away the game or song for free now buys the game because he or she can't stand waiting. There's no problem with the scenario you set up because that's not how piracy operates at all. It's not the case that the uploader says "Ok, you can borrow this but give me back" or "OK, first come first served, this shit is free!". The uploader just puts an infinite number of copies and no matter how many get that copy, he or she can access his or her own copy.

If he didn't borrow it for free, he'd have just bought it used instead, not from the company >.>, so still don't see how that hinders company sales

[Yugl]

Wouldn't that be the entire thread with the exception of the first post?

[Yugl]

If he didn't borrow it for free, he'd have just bought it used instead, not from the company >.>, so still don't see how that hinders company sales

That works in your particular example, but that example is unrepresentative of most cases. When a new song comes out, how many people are sitting there giving away the song for free (Non-pirates)? For new video games, you certainly see a limited number of "used" versions (For good games at least); at least not enough to supply the total number of people wanting the game. In short, you can't sell 'used' games unless someone actually paid for and used the product.

[Cream Soda]

When a new song comes out, it's going to be the only thing on the radio, even if you don't download it, you'd still be able to get it free from that source, whether you record it on a CD or a cassette or whichever capture tool you decide.

[Yugl]

When a new song comes out, it's going to be the only thing on the radio, even if you don't download it, you'd still be able to get it free from that source, whether you record it on a CD or a cassette or whichever capture tool you decide.

Not all songs; even for the ones that appear, you have to listen to the station (i.e. the ones that pay) to hear. What about video games? Books? Movies?

Edit: How is that NOT taking away profit btw?

[Cream Soda]

Well books are unavoidable if it's a new edition and it's required, but movies, games and books are not required. Some cases of piracy there is a loss. I'm saying not all cases result in a loss. If I download a Nicki Minaj song I'd in no way shape or form have ever bought, there's no loss. If I download a song that I would have purchased if downloading wasn't an option, then there'd be a loss.

I'm not claiming all cases of piracy result in no loss, I'm claiming there are cases in which it does and cases in which it doesn't.

P.S. I hate Nicki Minaj lol