That's not an argument against the concept of IP. It's an argument against the length copyright lasts. If your argument is against the length of copyright you shouldn't be pirating anything less than 20 years old.
While I disagree with your sentiment and am, in fact, an enormous fan and user of Steam. I admire your dedication.
I was very upset when everyone threw a big hissy fit about Modern Warfare 2 and decided to boycott it and I'm now the only person I know who doesn't yet own it. People who remember that boycotting is about not getting the product you're against as opposed to yelling loudly about it before buying/pirating it the second it comes out because "fuck it" make me remember why I still have faith in humanity.
I've given my friends access to my games on steam. I let them use my account. Since only one of us can be on the account at once only one copy of the game is valid at any one time.
I... wha... what?! Which part of "people I know have flat out told me they don't pay for music because they don't have to since they can pirate instead" do you not accept as evidence that people not paying for music because they can pirate instead is a real thing that happens and costs the industry money?
Here's what's happening:
elucido: If people don't buy music but pirate it instead it's because they can't afford it.
Me: I personally know a large number of people who CAN afford it but don't buy it anyways and pirate it instead.
You: No. You're wrong.
Me: what?
It is A cause of loss because I know people who are doing it and, as a result, causing the industry to lose money. You can't argue against this. It is a literal fact. the best you can argue is that it isn't a leading cause. But I never SAID it was a leading cause of lost revenue, all I said was that it was A CAUSE OF LOST REVENUE.
sneakernet isn't mass distribution so nobody cares. It still requires at least one if ever 10 or 20 users to buy the product.
as for "the internet isn't a society and cannot be controlled" I disagree. ISPs can be forced to IP block parts of the internet that the gov't doesn't want you accessing and even if some people are clever enough to get around that the majority of them won't and the remainder would be better off just buying the product for all the trouble it was. But I suppose time will prove on of us wrong
And were I discussing a phenomena that started last year you'd be correct. Not relevant since not being able to afford it != having the right to steal it (and I swear to god if you start the semantics of theft vs copying argument I will track you down and cut you) But I was in college in 2006. And this was already going strong. These aren't hypothetical cases I'm discussing, they're actual people I know. With gigs and gigs of pirated property who could have paid for a lot of it if they didn't feel the artist's right to get paid for what he did was less important than their own hedonism
Well since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with that then I suppose I would be forced to agree that it doesn't take it into account.
What does the fact that you currently have no income have to do with people who can afford to buy music/games/movies not doing so because it's cheaper and/or easier to just pirate them?
Unless there comes a time when you need something like a government issued license to be able to receive connections (and that would pretty much kill the internet as we know it), piracy will remain unstoppable.
As we know it? Maybe. But it won't kill the internet, and there is nothing stopping the governments from doing it. I believe some already do. How hard is it to register internet use the same way we do cars? Give people licenses and numbers they're legally required to use. It can be done. Hell, you don't even need to do that. Already here in Canada the monopoly holding ISP (Rogers) throttles torrent bandwidth, with a few lobbies and laws what's to stop them from blocking them altogether? Or even just slowing them to 1 bps? This can get VERY draconian. The internet is no longer a bunch of nerds sitting in basements, it has become the entire world and it will be controlled, it will be regulated. You can hear the whispers of it in the net neutrality laws, in the internet kill switch. The internet is too big to remain free forever. To say otherwise is to ignore every other new society that ever arose.
That's a strawman. I never said "killing" I said "costing money". Saying that torrents are killing the music industry is equally as insane as saying they're not doing anything. But there are definitely people who are using the torrent sites to not pay for media, not because they can't afford it, but because they just don't want to pay for something they can get for free and probably won't get in trouble for and if you killed the torrent sites (again, not something I think should happen) after a few months of complaining they'd start buying at least a few of the albums by their favourite bands.
Your first set of points is just a bunch of fallacious logic. The radio pays for the right to broadcast the song, therefore they can broadcast that song whenever they want and however they want.
The advertiser payed for air time so their ad gets played. You paid for nothing so all you have the right to do is listen to the radio.
Reasons for high settlement costs are (A) legal fees incurred in tracking you down and suing you (B) The need to make it not worth you time to download. If they could only sue you for the cost of the album then even if you got caught you'd still be in the exact same position as someone who didn't download. There needs to be a consequence to copyright violation for them to be able to protect their investment.
Yes, and we are currently in the "we need a reasonable balance" phase. That's what the ACTA is, their attempt to get to "reasonable balance" level. Whether you agree with the ACTAs specific wording or not, you have to acknowledge it's a completely natural thing to happen and until something like it comes around the industry will have to keep using boogeyman tactics.
Morals? Are you implying I think the record industry has a problem with pot, booze or smokes? My point was that the claim that "they'll spend 200 on music whether they download or not" was completely ridiculous. They'll download everything and then spend the money they would have spent on music/movies on things they CAN'T pirate.
Yes! That's the point. You can switch away during the commercial and the radio station still gets paid. The recording industry still gets paid and you still get to listen to the music. The advertiser gets screwed but they know going in that not everyone will listen to the ads and that gets factored into the amount they pay for them. But downloading doesn't let the recording industry get paid.
But albums/videos available on iTunes are just as prevalent on torrent sites as those that aren't so clearly people are still torrenting popular music that is available just as readily and DRM free. And to copy someone elses tape you needed someone else you knew to have that tape, with torrents, you need anyone else ONLINE to have that torrent.
Also, you seem to think that iTunes and the "RIAA with its shops" are two different things. Any shop legally selling music is equally connected to the RIAA.
They'd budget differently. Buy tallboys of Canadian instead of bottles of Stella. Buy natives instead of DuMauriers. No Name brand food instead of name brand. Saving $10 is easy when you find you suddenly have to to enjoy the music you like.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not an argument against the concept of IP. It's an argument against the length copyright lasts. If your argument is against the length of copyright you shouldn't be pirating anything less than 20 years old.
Similarly, you are entirely allowed to perform and record a cover of that song you like. Redistribution != reproducing.
While I disagree with your sentiment and am, in fact, an enormous fan and user of Steam. I admire your dedication.
I was very upset when everyone threw a big hissy fit about Modern Warfare 2 and decided to boycott it and I'm now the only person I know who doesn't yet own it. People who remember that boycotting is about not getting the product you're against as opposed to yelling loudly about it before buying/pirating it the second it comes out because "fuck it" make me remember why I still have faith in humanity.
What if it took you 2 months to make that sandwich and your only source of income is selling the sandwiches you make?
I've given my friends access to my games on steam. I let them use my account. Since only one of us can be on the account at once only one copy of the game is valid at any one time.
so the solution to the phone not working properly is to pay them for more hardware to fix a problem that is their fault?
No, they should be providing cases free of charge because their phone doesn't work properly and it is their responsibility to fix it.
I... wha... what?! Which part of "people I know have flat out told me they don't pay for music because they don't have to since they can pirate instead" do you not accept as evidence that people not paying for music because they can pirate instead is a real thing that happens and costs the industry money?
Here's what's happening:
elucido: If people don't buy music but pirate it instead it's because they can't afford it.
Me: I personally know a large number of people who CAN afford it but don't buy it anyways and pirate it instead.
You: No. You're wrong.
Me: what?
It is A cause of loss because I know people who are doing it and, as a result, causing the industry to lose money. You can't argue against this. It is a literal fact. the best you can argue is that it isn't a leading cause. But I never SAID it was a leading cause of lost revenue, all I said was that it was A CAUSE OF LOST REVENUE.
OK, what point do you think I made in my original post that you are arguing against?
sneakernet isn't mass distribution so nobody cares. It still requires at least one if ever 10 or 20 users to buy the product.
as for "the internet isn't a society and cannot be controlled" I disagree. ISPs can be forced to IP block parts of the internet that the gov't doesn't want you accessing and even if some people are clever enough to get around that the majority of them won't and the remainder would be better off just buying the product for all the trouble it was. But I suppose time will prove on of us wrong
And were I discussing a phenomena that started last year you'd be correct. Not relevant since not being able to afford it != having the right to steal it (and I swear to god if you start the semantics of theft vs copying argument I will track you down and cut you) But I was in college in 2006. And this was already going strong. These aren't hypothetical cases I'm discussing, they're actual people I know. With gigs and gigs of pirated property who could have paid for a lot of it if they didn't feel the artist's right to get paid for what he did was less important than their own hedonism
Well since my argument had absolutely nothing to do with that then I suppose I would be forced to agree that it doesn't take it into account.
What does the fact that you currently have no income have to do with people who can afford to buy music/games/movies not doing so because it's cheaper and/or easier to just pirate them?
Unless there comes a time when you need something like a government issued license to be able to receive connections (and that would pretty much kill the internet as we know it), piracy will remain unstoppable.
As we know it? Maybe. But it won't kill the internet, and there is nothing stopping the governments from doing it. I believe some already do. How hard is it to register internet use the same way we do cars? Give people licenses and numbers they're legally required to use. It can be done. Hell, you don't even need to do that. Already here in Canada the monopoly holding ISP (Rogers) throttles torrent bandwidth, with a few lobbies and laws what's to stop them from blocking them altogether? Or even just slowing them to 1 bps? This can get VERY draconian. The internet is no longer a bunch of nerds sitting in basements, it has become the entire world and it will be controlled, it will be regulated. You can hear the whispers of it in the net neutrality laws, in the internet kill switch. The internet is too big to remain free forever. To say otherwise is to ignore every other new society that ever arose.
Only because it's been around long enough to be public domain. ;)
That's a strawman. I never said "killing" I said "costing money". Saying that torrents are killing the music industry is equally as insane as saying they're not doing anything. But there are definitely people who are using the torrent sites to not pay for media, not because they can't afford it, but because they just don't want to pay for something they can get for free and probably won't get in trouble for and if you killed the torrent sites (again, not something I think should happen) after a few months of complaining they'd start buying at least a few of the albums by their favourite bands.
Your first set of points is just a bunch of fallacious logic. The radio pays for the right to broadcast the song, therefore they can broadcast that song whenever they want and however they want. The advertiser payed for air time so their ad gets played. You paid for nothing so all you have the right to do is listen to the radio.
Reasons for high settlement costs are (A) legal fees incurred in tracking you down and suing you (B) The need to make it not worth you time to download. If they could only sue you for the cost of the album then even if you got caught you'd still be in the exact same position as someone who didn't download. There needs to be a consequence to copyright violation for them to be able to protect their investment.
Yes, and we are currently in the "we need a reasonable balance" phase. That's what the ACTA is, their attempt to get to "reasonable balance" level. Whether you agree with the ACTAs specific wording or not, you have to acknowledge it's a completely natural thing to happen and until something like it comes around the industry will have to keep using boogeyman tactics.
Morals? Are you implying I think the record industry has a problem with pot, booze or smokes? My point was that the claim that "they'll spend 200 on music whether they download or not" was completely ridiculous. They'll download everything and then spend the money they would have spent on music/movies on things they CAN'T pirate.
No. The radio station pays the recording industry for the rights to play the song on the radio. The radio station pays the recording industry.
Yes! That's the point. You can switch away during the commercial and the radio station still gets paid. The recording industry still gets paid and you still get to listen to the music. The advertiser gets screwed but they know going in that not everyone will listen to the ads and that gets factored into the amount they pay for them. But downloading doesn't let the recording industry get paid.
But albums/videos available on iTunes are just as prevalent on torrent sites as those that aren't so clearly people are still torrenting popular music that is available just as readily and DRM free. And to copy someone elses tape you needed someone else you knew to have that tape, with torrents, you need anyone else ONLINE to have that torrent.
Also, you seem to think that iTunes and the "RIAA with its shops" are two different things. Any shop legally selling music is equally connected to the RIAA.
well... until Sony decide to remove the functionality after I buy their system for the purpose of using it. ;)
Thank you. : )
I agree entirely. They'll probably never actually do it. But to say that torrent sites aren't costing the recording industries money is madness.
Now you're just being willfully ignorant. They still get money from the commercial whether you see it or not.
They'd budget differently. Buy tallboys of Canadian instead of bottles of Stella. Buy natives instead of DuMauriers. No Name brand food instead of name brand. Saving $10 is easy when you find you suddenly have to to enjoy the music you like.