"Not distributing content" is the technical loophole I'm talking about it. It doesn't matter if the site is distributing content or not. What matters is if the site is materially contributing to copyright infringement. And the copyright holders know if the people distributing it have the right to do so, and they have overwhelmingly said that no, Joe Torrent does not have a license to distribute their content.
Allow me to disagree: the admin of IsoHunt not only does not have the means to know if any given user of his website has the right to make a copy of a certain content, he also has no way to know if aiding any given user to make that copy is contributing to copyright infringement. And the same goes for the copyright holders. They say Joe Torrent does not have that right, but they really don't know, because they have no means to verify where Joe Torrent lives and/or if he bought a copy of the content (two of the dozen or so of circumstances that would give Joe Torrent that right).
The proof of that is the fact that these companies who own the copyright are spending their own time and money to sue both people who are distributing it, and people who are assisting with the distribution.
Sorry, but that proves absolutely nothing. Also, note that they're not being successful everywhere. In fact, they're not doing that everywhere, mainly because they know they can't.
The courts have been through this over several years. They've sampled the data and checked if it's infringing or not. They have a good idea of the ratio of the content the site links to which is legit and infringing. Over several years they've found what any rational person would find: the vast majority of content that isoHunt links to is not being distributed with the consent of the copyright holders.
And that is relevant, how exactly? Oh, yeah, you're assuming the world ends at the USA (or any country with a similar legal system). Well, take a look at most of Europe.
Anyway, the fact still remains that neither the owners of the content nor the admins of websites can know for sure if there's actually any infringement.
Please elaborate on why the analogy is "pretty dumb". Aside from the hyperbole of comparing copyright infringement to wanton murder, it captures the spirit pretty well: the target dummies represent the fabled legitimate content and/or legitimate downloaders that are used to defend the legitimacy of the site; the firing range represents the sites that are indexed by their crawler, i.e. the "scope of operations"; the people wandering through represent the copyrighted material that is "inadvertently" being indexed and the ratio of people to targets suggests that the firing range is in a sub-optimal location; and the killer robots represent the software isoHunt use to run the site, which is quite understandably unable to differentiate between the two types of "targets".
It's dumb because the law forbids shooting indiscriminately if it endangers people or property (even if you don't actually hit anyone), whereas the law doesn't forbid making copies of contents. And before you say it, yes, I am aware that some laws in some countries forbid it under certain circumstances. But there's none that forbids it under any circumstances.
By comparing it to actually killing people, we push aside the "but it shouldn't be illegal to download movies!" argument by using something that very few people would argue should be legal.
Actually, the comparison is fallacious, and thus inadequate. And it brings morals into a question where they should not be brought, by means of comparing actions universally regarded as immoral, and thus universally considered illegal (murder), to actions not universally regarded as immoral, and thus not universally considered illegal (making copies of copyrighted content).
But that's the thing: the site is NOT distributing any content. And nobody has the means to know if the PEOPLE who are actually distributing it have the right to do so (or even if they know that they're distributing it; yes, some people are THAT dumb).
And speaking of dumb, your analogy is pretty dumb.
His Spain link is not out-of-date. Read both articles so you actually know why one judge ruled what he ruled (and what he actually ruled, which wasn't that ALL P2P links and all filesharing are legal), and why the other ordered what he ordered. Also, wait for the second judge to rule, he may still decide those sites are legal (the blocking is a preemptive measure, doesn't mean the sites are illegal).
And yet you failed to find anything relevant? Your Google-fu sucks sweaty donkey balls, little grasshopper.
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Then don't bring "what we know about the human mind" into the argument, lest you embarrass yourself.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
I believe you misplaced the negative particle here, bro. Anyway, it's bullshit because not everyone conforms to what you claim we know about the human mind. You're making generalizations, and as always when doing so, you're prone to error.
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Because it's not a single exchange from one source to multiple receivers. It's multiple private exchanges from one source to one receiver. It's the technologic equivalent of me burning a CD and giving it to everyone that asks me to. And here, both things are legal, under the "private copying" provision. Also, ask the judge, he's the one that ruled P2P to be a case of "private copying", not me. And I trust the judge knows our law better than I do, and obviously better than you do.
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
And not because it makes half of your points moot or proves 'em wrong, right?
Yes, I admit how wrong you were.
Excuse me? That proves YOU wrong, because the origin is COMMERCIAL unauthorized copying, which was exactly my point. What we are discussing is neither commercial, nor (in lots of places) unauthorized.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
Except I'm not the one causing it. And you're still using the name wrong.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
What makes you think he would? How do you know that probability is not about zero?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
Except I'm not limiting my rebuttals to that.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
The "morals" non-argument, yet again. Also, note that I'm indeed paying what he asks. Even when I shouldn't.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
Metaphorical? More like fictional.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
The amount is what the artists, through the associations tha
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
Therefore, me using it was acceptable, since (admittedly due to a mistake on your part, and not intentionally) it seemed that you were not interested in arguing the point out, preferring instead to deny having said what you had in fact said.
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
And I'm pretty sure you have some prejudice, something akin to "the only people who'd call me a troll when my apparent behaviour, even if only because I made a mistake, is that of a troll, are trolls".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Escaping it is fairly easy, just try to walk the proverbial mile in my proverbial shoes. You're likely to realize then that not only do I have no prejudice against you, but also that my reaction was logical, given the circumstances.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
Oh, don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. Just, in future, try to remember that denying the obvious truth (in this case, denying to have written what you had written), even if by mistake, can make you look like a troll.
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
I already instructed you to search for proof. I mentioned several studies (there's one by the Dutch Government, and I believe I already mentioned several by the Spanish equivalents to RIAA and other organizations, and by the Ministry of Culture; there are more, though).
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly preme
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
I think that by now it should be pretty clear that I did not use the word "troll" as an argumentum ad hominem, but because, in my eyes, you truly behaved as one, claiming that you hadn't made a comment which you in fact made.
Whatever, letting this drag on any longer serves no purpose, so I'll be more than happy to let it go if you do the same.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
If you knew anything about the topic, you'd realize there's no trick to enforce that. At least, not one that doesn't involve getting rid of some fundamental rights.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately.
You're very much mistaken, my friend. If you weren't, nobody would be producing CD's anymore, since long ago.
Gee, I wonder how musicians lived before vinyls, tapes and CDs were invented...
Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
Please do. After all, these "conclusive, rational answers" that you mention have been thoroughly debunked many, many times before. So this should be fun...
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
Please note I clearly said "under the conditions imposed by the artists/labels". Also, if I'm not mistaken most people you see don't live anywhere where non-profit private copies are legal. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
DRM, lobbying for draconian laws, overprized products (and I'm not even taking into account that the artist sees a miserable amount of that prize, the lion's share being taken by the label, and to a lesser extent by the store), and in some countries a levy that people are forced to pay even in circumstances where the law clearly says they shouldn't... How's that for starters? Come on, did I really have to explain that?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
I do not believe that. Again, I'm paying even for works I don't copy. Also, if by "for free" you mean the making of non-profit private copies (regardless of there being a levy; BTW, some countries, which happen to be signatories to copyright treaties, allow such copies without imposing any levy, FYI), I believe I've sufficiently proved you wrong.
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
I refuted it just fine. If you're happier denying it, it's not my problem.
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
Then you didn't look for more than thirty seconds.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
Bullshit. But I guess you'll say your got a degree in Psichology...
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
It's not OK, in your opinion. Others, such as me, disagree. AS for what I meant, I meant "considered legal an acceptable". Also, being signatories to copyright treaties means nothing. Read the Bern treaty, for example, and you'll see it allows its signatories to include exceptions to allow the making of non-profit, private copies. P2P clearly falls in that category.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
Research the origin of the term and realize you're misusing it. Then come and admit how wrong you were. As for your method, I don't think I have to tell you what I think about it, and that I'm not going to stop making use of my rights (yes, you read that just fine, I did say "rights") because of what you say. A truly foolproof method for making sure i'm not labelled one again is for people who'd be tempted to label me one to STFU and make sure they know what they're talking about before they say anything.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
It's still bullshit. But that doesn't matter, since the probability is about zero.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
Again, you ignore the fact that his fans are indeed paying him. And the ones that are not his fans are paying him too. And both the fans and the non-fans are paying him even when the law clearly says they shouldn't. Yes, I'm referring to the levy again. Also, add the rest of the payments that the fans make (concerts, actually buying the album because they first downloaded it and they liked it, etc).
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
I don't usually equate legal with moral either.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, an
Well, if you do, then you're painfully mistaken. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes of using Google to find several studies that prove you wrong.
As for how likely people are to buy music of the can't copy it (please refrain from labelling it piracy, it's not piracy, in fact it's not even illegal in most places), I'd say the chance is close to zero (or even zero for most of what they copy). Either way, your argument that the probability multiplied by the price equals the loss that copy produces is utter BS. And even if it were true, it's not "unfair". The law allows it, and the artist knew that before publishing his work, so I really don't see how that's unfair. If the artist wants to play, he must do so by the rules of the game. And those rules include (at least around here) our right to make non-profit, private copies of his work. Copies for which we pay even if we don't make them. And I'm not even taking into account the money (taken from our taxes) that the Government gives to artists so they can produce their art... You simply do not know how that business works over here, if you did you'd agree with me.
So, to keep it short: no, nothing of that is lost revenue to anyone. In fact, it could even be an increase of revenue (what I don't spend on albums, I spend on live shows, which by the way get the artist a alot more money than selling records; and most people do the same, as you'd know if you had researched the topic even a little bit). Furthermore, I'm neither pirating nor stealing, so I would like you to stop being a jerk and accusing me of commiting crimes I did not commit. Unless you want to make an argumentum ad hominem your main point, in which case I hope you don't mind if I start making the assumption that you're a criminal and we end up resorting to namecalling, something you seem to like if the rest of your posts here are indicative of a behavioural pattern.
It's simpler than that, actually: I assumed you had the ability to read, and that you had therefore read what you yourself posted. Also, that your memory was better than that of a goldfish. So that assumption led me to believe that you claimed to not have said what you had said while knowing that you had, in fact, said it. I guess this will teach me to think twice before I assume others possess certain basic skills.
That said, you have resorted to a pityful argumentum ad hominem, which I'm ignoring because I don't need to lower myself to your level like that. Instead, I'll ask that you read the post you were originally replying to, and keep doing so until you realize nobody is getting deprived of any choices (at least not any more than with the current system), much less so the artists.
As for the model being obsolete... It's "utterly, completely obvious". I mean, it's based on a monopoly that can't be enforced any longer. It's based on selling goods that can be mass-produced with no loss of quality. It's based on something people no longer want (at least not under the conditions imposed by artists/labels). It's based on screwing your customers, and customers don't take well to being screwed by the people they're feeding with their money.
The rest of your message is nothing but nonsense that reality itself has proven wrong, so instead of debunking it once piece at a time, I'll let you have a look at the world around you.
Also, please refrain from calling me a pirate. What pirates do is illegal, what I do isn't.
"Did you really think that you could just force artists to provide you with free services, without repercussions?"
So, now that we've established you're a liar, I shall not entertain your trolling any further, and will instead proceed to answer your absurd question. You asked "such as?", to which the answer is "levy on blank media". If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't even have asked that question.
As for the rest of your nonsense, call me when you have actually seen the business from the inside and can accept that no, artists (and please note I'm not referring to any big names here, since those do indeed have a choice) usually don't have that much of a choice. Oh, and when you can back your claims with something better than "it's completely and utterly obvious", which will probably happen shortly after you actually understand the point being made in the message to which you were originally replying (that being that when your business model is obsolete you either change it or quit, but don't try to screw your customers).
Yes and no. In Spain, it's only mandatory to follow rulings by the Supreme Court. All other rulings may or may not be referenced and/or taken into account by judges. So if the law can be interpreted to accomodate it, a judge could kind of ignore it and produce a different ruling than the one described in the article.
...and does "lucrative" only refer to monetary benefit?
No. It refers to commercial activities (so no, share ratio does not count).
I think this still leaves the door open to action against P2P, because any file that you are downloading, you are usually also uploading as well. Does that count as "collective use"?
Did you really, truly think that non-profit copying for private use is hurting artists, considering that those artists receive money to compensate the (most likely non-existing) losses that those copies produce, even if no copies are made?
You can repeat it if you want, doesn't make it any less false.
For starters, you don't even get that nobody is forcing artists to provide anything for free, and in fact we're paying them even for services they don't provide. Second, you assume all artists have a choice, which tells me you don't even know how this business works.
You're wrong. You're not paying for the right to make copies of content you already bought. You're paying to compensate for the (mostly inexistent) losses that the making of copies (regardless of the source of the copy being content you already bought or not) causes to artists.
Slashdot Mirror
hosting the torrent files is equivalent to hosting the files.
As much as knowing where Joe Dealer sells drugs is equivalent to selling drugs. Which is to say, not at all.
"Not distributing content" is the technical loophole I'm talking about it. It doesn't matter if the site is distributing content or not. What matters is if the site is materially contributing to copyright infringement. And the copyright holders know if the people distributing it have the right to do so, and they have overwhelmingly said that no, Joe Torrent does not have a license to distribute their content.
Allow me to disagree: the admin of IsoHunt not only does not have the means to know if any given user of his website has the right to make a copy of a certain content, he also has no way to know if aiding any given user to make that copy is contributing to copyright infringement. And the same goes for the copyright holders. They say Joe Torrent does not have that right, but they really don't know, because they have no means to verify where Joe Torrent lives and/or if he bought a copy of the content (two of the dozen or so of circumstances that would give Joe Torrent that right).
The proof of that is the fact that these companies who own the copyright are spending their own time and money to sue both people who are distributing it, and people who are assisting with the distribution.
Sorry, but that proves absolutely nothing. Also, note that they're not being successful everywhere. In fact, they're not doing that everywhere, mainly because they know they can't.
The courts have been through this over several years. They've sampled the data and checked if it's infringing or not. They have a good idea of the ratio of the content the site links to which is legit and infringing. Over several years they've found what any rational person would find: the vast majority of content that isoHunt links to is not being distributed with the consent of the copyright holders.
And that is relevant, how exactly? Oh, yeah, you're assuming the world ends at the USA (or any country with a similar legal system). Well, take a look at most of Europe.
Anyway, the fact still remains that neither the owners of the content nor the admins of websites can know for sure if there's actually any infringement.
Please elaborate on why the analogy is "pretty dumb". Aside from the hyperbole of comparing copyright infringement to wanton murder, it captures the spirit pretty well: the target dummies represent the fabled legitimate content and/or legitimate downloaders that are used to defend the legitimacy of the site; the firing range represents the sites that are indexed by their crawler, i.e. the "scope of operations"; the people wandering through represent the copyrighted material that is "inadvertently" being indexed and the ratio of people to targets suggests that the firing range is in a sub-optimal location; and the killer robots represent the software isoHunt use to run the site, which is quite understandably unable to differentiate between the two types of "targets".
It's dumb because the law forbids shooting indiscriminately if it endangers people or property (even if you don't actually hit anyone), whereas the law doesn't forbid making copies of contents. And before you say it, yes, I am aware that some laws in some countries forbid it under certain circumstances. But there's none that forbids it under any circumstances.
By comparing it to actually killing people, we push aside the "but it shouldn't be illegal to download movies!" argument by using something that very few people would argue should be legal.
Actually, the comparison is fallacious, and thus inadequate. And it brings morals into a question where they should not be brought, by means of comparing actions universally regarded as immoral, and thus universally considered illegal (murder), to actions not universally regarded as immoral, and thus not universally considered illegal (making copies of copyrighted content).
Clearly, it's grossly ne
You're missing the point. The whole indirection thing doesn't matter as long as your sole purpose is to link to copyrighted material.
Which is not the sole purpose of IsoHunt.
But that's the thing: the site is NOT distributing any content. And nobody has the means to know if the PEOPLE who are actually distributing it have the right to do so (or even if they know that they're distributing it; yes, some people are THAT dumb).
And speaking of dumb, your analogy is pretty dumb.
His Spain link is not out-of-date. Read both articles so you actually know why one judge ruled what he ruled (and what he actually ruled, which wasn't that ALL P2P links and all filesharing are legal), and why the other ordered what he ordered. Also, wait for the second judge to rule, he may still decide those sites are legal (the blocking is a preemptive measure, doesn't mean the sites are illegal).
I looked for 5:32. I timed it.
And yet you failed to find anything relevant? Your Google-fu sucks sweaty donkey balls, little grasshopper.
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Then don't bring "what we know about the human mind" into the argument, lest you embarrass yourself.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
I believe you misplaced the negative particle here, bro. Anyway, it's bullshit because not everyone conforms to what you claim we know about the human mind. You're making generalizations, and as always when doing so, you're prone to error.
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Because it's not a single exchange from one source to multiple receivers. It's multiple private exchanges from one source to one receiver. It's the technologic equivalent of me burning a CD and giving it to everyone that asks me to. And here, both things are legal, under the "private copying" provision. Also, ask the judge, he's the one that ruled P2P to be a case of "private copying", not me. And I trust the judge knows our law better than I do, and obviously better than you do.
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
And not because it makes half of your points moot or proves 'em wrong, right?
Yes, I admit how wrong you were.
Excuse me? That proves YOU wrong, because the origin is COMMERCIAL unauthorized copying, which was exactly my point. What we are discussing is neither commercial, nor (in lots of places) unauthorized.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
Except I'm not the one causing it. And you're still using the name wrong.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
What makes you think he would? How do you know that probability is not about zero?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
Except I'm not limiting my rebuttals to that.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
The "morals" non-argument, yet again. Also, note that I'm indeed paying what he asks. Even when I shouldn't.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
Metaphorical? More like fictional.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
The amount is what the artists, through the associations tha
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
Therefore, me using it was acceptable, since (admittedly due to a mistake on your part, and not intentionally) it seemed that you were not interested in arguing the point out, preferring instead to deny having said what you had in fact said.
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
And I'm pretty sure you have some prejudice, something akin to "the only people who'd call me a troll when my apparent behaviour, even if only because I made a mistake, is that of a troll, are trolls".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Escaping it is fairly easy, just try to walk the proverbial mile in my proverbial shoes. You're likely to realize then that not only do I have no prejudice against you, but also that my reaction was logical, given the circumstances.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
Oh, don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. Just, in future, try to remember that denying the obvious truth (in this case, denying to have written what you had written), even if by mistake, can make you look like a troll.
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
I already instructed you to search for proof. I mentioned several studies (there's one by the Dutch Government, and I believe I already mentioned several by the Spanish equivalents to RIAA and other organizations, and by the Ministry of Culture; there are more, though).
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly preme
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
I think that by now it should be pretty clear that I did not use the word "troll" as an argumentum ad hominem, but because, in my eyes, you truly behaved as one, claiming that you hadn't made a comment which you in fact made.
Whatever, letting this drag on any longer serves no purpose, so I'll be more than happy to let it go if you do the same.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
If you knew anything about the topic, you'd realize there's no trick to enforce that. At least, not one that doesn't involve getting rid of some fundamental rights.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately.
You're very much mistaken, my friend. If you weren't, nobody would be producing CD's anymore, since long ago.
Gee, I wonder how musicians lived before vinyls, tapes and CDs were invented...
Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
Please do. After all, these "conclusive, rational answers" that you mention have been thoroughly debunked many, many times before. So this should be fun...
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
Please note I clearly said "under the conditions imposed by the artists/labels". Also, if I'm not mistaken most people you see don't live anywhere where non-profit private copies are legal. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
DRM, lobbying for draconian laws, overprized products (and I'm not even taking into account that the artist sees a miserable amount of that prize, the lion's share being taken by the label, and to a lesser extent by the store), and in some countries a levy that people are forced to pay even in circumstances where the law clearly says they shouldn't... How's that for starters? Come on, did I really have to explain that?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
I do not believe that. Again, I'm paying even for works I don't copy. Also, if by "for free" you mean the making of non-profit private copies (regardless of there being a levy; BTW, some countries, which happen to be signatories to copyright treaties, allow such copies without imposing any levy, FYI), I believe I've sufficiently proved you wrong.
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
I refuted it just fine. If you're happier denying it, it's not my problem.
Look, you're very adept at insulting your op
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
Then you didn't look for more than thirty seconds.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
Bullshit. But I guess you'll say your got a degree in Psichology...
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
It's not OK, in your opinion. Others, such as me, disagree. AS for what I meant, I meant "considered legal an acceptable". Also, being signatories to copyright treaties means nothing. Read the Bern treaty, for example, and you'll see it allows its signatories to include exceptions to allow the making of non-profit, private copies. P2P clearly falls in that category.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
Research the origin of the term and realize you're misusing it. Then come and admit how wrong you were. As for your method, I don't think I have to tell you what I think about it, and that I'm not going to stop making use of my rights (yes, you read that just fine, I did say "rights") because of what you say. A truly foolproof method for making sure i'm not labelled one again is for people who'd be tempted to label me one to STFU and make sure they know what they're talking about before they say anything.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
It's still bullshit. But that doesn't matter, since the probability is about zero.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
Again, you ignore the fact that his fans are indeed paying him. And the ones that are not his fans are paying him too. And both the fans and the non-fans are paying him even when the law clearly says they shouldn't. Yes, I'm referring to the levy again. Also, add the rest of the payments that the fans make (concerts, actually buying the album because they first downloaded it and they liked it, etc).
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
I don't usually equate legal with moral either.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, an
Well, if you do, then you're painfully mistaken. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes of using Google to find several studies that prove you wrong.
As for how likely people are to buy music of the can't copy it (please refrain from labelling it piracy, it's not piracy, in fact it's not even illegal in most places), I'd say the chance is close to zero (or even zero for most of what they copy). Either way, your argument that the probability multiplied by the price equals the loss that copy produces is utter BS. And even if it were true, it's not "unfair". The law allows it, and the artist knew that before publishing his work, so I really don't see how that's unfair. If the artist wants to play, he must do so by the rules of the game. And those rules include (at least around here) our right to make non-profit, private copies of his work. Copies for which we pay even if we don't make them. And I'm not even taking into account the money (taken from our taxes) that the Government gives to artists so they can produce their art... You simply do not know how that business works over here, if you did you'd agree with me.
So, to keep it short: no, nothing of that is lost revenue to anyone. In fact, it could even be an increase of revenue (what I don't spend on albums, I spend on live shows, which by the way get the artist a alot more money than selling records; and most people do the same, as you'd know if you had researched the topic even a little bit). Furthermore, I'm neither pirating nor stealing, so I would like you to stop being a jerk and accusing me of commiting crimes I did not commit. Unless you want to make an argumentum ad hominem your main point, in which case I hope you don't mind if I start making the assumption that you're a criminal and we end up resorting to namecalling, something you seem to like if the rest of your posts here are indicative of a behavioural pattern.
It's simpler than that, actually: I assumed you had the ability to read, and that you had therefore read what you yourself posted. Also, that your memory was better than that of a goldfish. So that assumption led me to believe that you claimed to not have said what you had said while knowing that you had, in fact, said it. I guess this will teach me to think twice before I assume others possess certain basic skills.
That said, you have resorted to a pityful argumentum ad hominem, which I'm ignoring because I don't need to lower myself to your level like that. Instead, I'll ask that you read the post you were originally replying to, and keep doing so until you realize nobody is getting deprived of any choices (at least not any more than with the current system), much less so the artists.
As for the model being obsolete... It's "utterly, completely obvious". I mean, it's based on a monopoly that can't be enforced any longer. It's based on selling goods that can be mass-produced with no loss of quality. It's based on something people no longer want (at least not under the conditions imposed by artists/labels). It's based on screwing your customers, and customers don't take well to being screwed by the people they're feeding with their money.
The rest of your message is nothing but nonsense that reality itself has proven wrong, so instead of debunking it once piece at a time, I'll let you have a look at the world around you.
Also, please refrain from calling me a pirate. What pirates do is illegal, what I do isn't.
"Did you really think that you could just force artists to provide you with free services, without repercussions?"
So, now that we've established you're a liar, I shall not entertain your trolling any further, and will instead proceed to answer your absurd question. You asked "such as?", to which the answer is "levy on blank media". If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't even have asked that question.
As for the rest of your nonsense, call me when you have actually seen the business from the inside and can accept that no, artists (and please note I'm not referring to any big names here, since those do indeed have a choice) usually don't have that much of a choice. Oh, and when you can back your claims with something better than "it's completely and utterly obvious", which will probably happen shortly after you actually understand the point being made in the message to which you were originally replying (that being that when your business model is obsolete you either change it or quit, but don't try to screw your customers).
Yes and no. In Spain, it's only mandatory to follow rulings by the Supreme Court. All other rulings may or may not be referenced and/or taken into account by judges. So if the law can be interpreted to accomodate it, a judge could kind of ignore it and produce a different ruling than the one described in the article.
...and does "lucrative" only refer to monetary benefit?
No. It refers to commercial activities (so no, share ratio does not count).
I think this still leaves the door open to action against P2P, because any file that you are downloading, you are usually also uploading as well. Does that count as "collective use"?
No it doesn't. It's not public broadcasting
Did you really, truly think that non-profit copying for private use is hurting artists, considering that those artists receive money to compensate the (most likely non-existing) losses that those copies produce, even if no copies are made?
You can repeat it if you want, doesn't make it any less false.
For starters, you don't even get that nobody is forcing artists to provide anything for free, and in fact we're paying them even for services they don't provide. Second, you assume all artists have a choice, which tells me you don't even know how this business works.
You're wrong. You're not paying for the right to make copies of content you already bought. You're paying to compensate for the (mostly inexistent) losses that the making of copies (regardless of the source of the copy being content you already bought or not) causes to artists.