Two *different* conversations, which I clearly stated with the subtle "copyright terms and validity actually have nothing to do with my point" that you kindly repeated. Thought it was a reasonable segue to the *other* topic but some people take more mallets to the head...
But anyway, pretending anyone with a copyright is the "mafia" is absurd. Why would anyone listen to anything else you say?
but you just spit a false comparison, and followed up with repeated defenses of your (rather insensitive to rape victims) retarded analogy.
No, dude, you have said the same thing multiple times here, and posting it more than once doesn't make it any more relevant. It was hyperbole to point out you should never, ever blame someone ELSE for YOUR actions (even if you in fact think the victim is an evil money grubbing corporation). I was not being insensitive to anyone any more than your comment/point is being insensitive to developmentally challenged people (I assume, right??)
Well, at least I never made any personal attacks, which you just did, awesome for you! Ad hominem and all that. You are a bad person, and should feel bad... no not really, because I unlike you I don't in fact think anyone should feel bad from a hypothetical debate on a web site. I hope you have a great Easter/Ishtar/day off whatever it's called today.
But more to the point, if you read my whole comment you would have seen: "I'm not even saying I'd make a different decision in your shoes, but I would not try to claim anyone else made me do it". And if you had read any of my other posts on the topic, you'd see I am very opposed to most copyright laws (look it up, no need to repeat myself). But I am also pro-copyright in some form, no matter whether you think you "need" that content a person/group created themselves even if they made it hard for you to acquire.
And for your last point - again read the whole thread before commenting. Analogy != equivalency, and hyperbole is simply a device that served exactly the purpose it was meant to in this case. I haven't judged anyone in this thread on piracy itself, and understand why someone might do it (and in the past have downloaded tv shows myself!), but my point is YOU made that decision, so grab some sack and admit it - don't pretend someone else forced you to take their cookie because they wouldn't share it.
Pointing out behaviour that increase the chances of a crime happening is _not_ blaming the victim.
If you are an objective observer before the fact warning someone of statistics, maybe not. If you are the person committing the offense or claiming the statistic somehow validates the offense, then yes, it is goddamn well blaming the victim. If you read the comment, it was the latter.
So, this was already covered above before you posted, but analogy != equivalence. Go read it, no need to go over it again.
Second, it was hyperbole for effect. Look up the definition of hyperbole, I think it did its job here.
And third, it's completely incorrect to say piracy/copyright infringement has no victim just because you don't like the victim. I could make hyperbolic analogies about that, as well, but I think you get the point.
As far as your example, that's fine, you decided for yourself that it either did not violate your moral code or somehow "you tried hard enough" and didn't care. Not everyone would make that decision just because "my mom needs it". But don't blame the copyright owner for your action, have some balls and admit you made the decision yourself. I'm not even saying I'd make a different decision in your shoes, but I would not try to claim anyone else made me do it. I also drive over the speed limit sometimes, but if I get pulled over I admit I was driving too fast, I don't whine to the cop about how the speed limit is too low.
And yes, you can argue harm when someone can't buy something. Maybe they are negotiating the international rights. Or maybe, like, Disney (a real douche of a copyright holder, I agree, and I am in fact against 90% of the current copyright laws) they prefer to make their content unavailable and re-release it once in a while. Doesn't matter, it's just another case of blaming the copyright owner because you can't have something of theirs right damn now gimme gimme I want!
I don't know why you have to "be active in fantasy circles" to hear about it. I read all of the books just because I like fantasy and it's been at the top of the best selling fantasy novels for the past decade. If you are a fantasy lover and have ever been to a bookstore or Amazon, you will have seen many references to it. If you aren't, who cares? Clearly you don't seem to even realize it's a longstanding fantasy series, so you don't qualify as one of "us weirdos", sorry:)
Hah. Given Adam Smith practically defined the concept of the intrinsic theory of value, I beg to differ. Maybe you should actually READ books like the Wealth of Nations and Communist Manifesto before trying to comment on them?
I wholeheartedly agree that the studios screw the CG effects workers. I have a lot of friends in that industry (which up in the Bay Area is not unionized) and their contract re-negotiations are definitely borderline illegal. They are some of the more talented people I know with some of the lowest salaries for their expertise; like the game industry, it's tough to negotiate when your employer knows you love your work.
But those are industry *employees*, not customers, so it wasn't his point. And not a SINGLE one of those effects people that I know thinks piracy of their movies to "stick it to their employer" is a good idea, because a large part of their income (up to 1/2, in some cases) is based on bonuses they get from the movie's box office gross.
No, you didn't get my point at all, just made it what you wanted for your point. Sigh.
My point was I don't care what the illegal activity is, don't blame the victim. If you believe piracy/copyright infringement is ok, then go ahead and do it, but also get some balls and admit the reason is YOU think it's ok, not that someone else coerced you into doing it.
Copyright terms and validity actually have nothing to do with my point (it's your point that used mine as a straw man). But, to go in that direction... I do think copyright infringement should be illegal and have a penalty, but anyone doing it for personal use it should only be penalized for the price of the content (like, $25 max per movie). Maybe some nominal fine as well, but the current $25k max is insane. And if you can prove you paid for the content already (like, bought a DVD or digital stream and then torrented it) it should not be illegal as the point of copyright is a licensed right, not a physical copy. Of course professionals doing it is a different story, but that's already criminal.
I also agree with you (and am maybe even more extreme) on copyright extensions. For most cases, I think the copyright of media should be limited to an initial useful term to realize profit (for example, 5 years for a movie is far more than any studios plan for when estimating profitability; individual works like novels may need a longer term, but in no way should extend significantly past the death of the author).
But most of what you said is not true for the vast majority of users (ie. the 99.9% not using a Linux desktop to watch TV). I don't use iTunes much, but on VUDU it's 2 clicks on a remote to purchase and one more to play back. If it's on Netflix it's one click to play and that's it. Streaming starts instantly (no download needed), and on VUDU if you want to download it's usually at almost the max 30Mbps speed of my ISP. Both are DRMed, but there is no pain whatsoever to stream or play a download on my TV, PC, or tablet (almost always on the TV for me since I'm not a big fan of watching on a PC - I'm usually using the PC while watching;)
And "paying for the service" is not a pro/con unless you think piracy is fine, in which case the rest of the arguments are entirely moot. I'm not a big fan of piracy (since IMO watching a silly TV show is not a fundamental human right as some seem to think) but on the other hand I can't find any fault in someone who pays for the content and then torrents it to get a DRM-free copy...
Actually, he does. An analogy is a matching inference or relation, not an equivalency.
"day : light:: night : dark" doesn't mean day == night.
Doesn't matter what the illegal activity is, when the person committing it blames the victim it's wrong. Using a hyperbole to make the analogy is a common rhetorical device. Obviously there is no equivalent harm, that's why I said so IN MY POST. Sigh.
Did you read my whole comment, ie, the "clearly the harm is much lower/almost non-existant" part? You can most definitely compare an argument that the illegal activity (I never said crime or theft, again READ IT) was the *victim's* fault to any other illegal activity where someone makes such a ridiculous claim. The hyperbolic comparison was, of course, the POINT.
Actually, HBO subs are $15-20 / month, and basic cable is ~$40. And including the cost of your Internet access into the price makes about as much sense as including your rent into the cost of a meal you made in your kitchen. And you can't download a torrent without Internet access, either...
Also, unless you signed up for a long-term contract with your cable/satellite provider HBO is month-to-month. In fact I have several friends who only add it specifically when GOT is on:)
Anyway, if you want to watch it on demand you do need cable and an HBO sub, that's true. But that's really no difference from watching it live (or DVRed) by broadcast. There are many networks who make their shows available next day for $2 ea. HBO waits until the season is over before they do that so as not to cannibalize subscription revenue, but they still do make it available on iTunes, VUDU, Amazon, etc without any need for cable or a sub...
Wha? Ok, Hollywood is out for itself and no one else, sure, but "slaves"? Hyperbole, much? In fact, it's not even hyperbole, I can't even come up with any analogy that makes the slightest sense with that one. Seriously, it's not food and water, it's just a stupid TV show.
It's funny, because they currently sell their 1-hour episodes for $2-3 each, which when you think about it really is NOT a lot of money. If you make $10/hr that's only 15-20 minutes of time/work equivalent. And I'd bet many/. users are more like $60/hr, which is 2-3 minutes of time. So, if you are taking longer than that to download the show and set it up to play back, you really aren't using your "free" time very efficiently.
So, maybe HBO, etc needs run an ad campaign explaining how your time is valuable and downloads aren't the best use of it. And of course then make their content available the same day it airs on TV in a convenient, inexpensive way, ideally in a non-intrusive format playable on a wide range of devices:)
People pirate it because the only way to watch it legally is to subscribe to HBO. Their business model induces the piracy.
Their business model induces piracy about as much as a woman's clothing induces rape. Pirate the show if you want (clearly the harm is much lower/almost non-existant) but don't pretend it's the content owner's fault you did it.
Yeah, HBO's revenue is mostly from (a very expensive) subscription and then DVD/BD sales of the show later. If the show is good enough (and several HBO shows have been) they actually have people paying twice to watch it same-day and then have the collection later...
But there are definitely situations where piracy would hurt them - for example, widespread access to the show BEFORE it airs on HBO would hurt subscriptions, and professional pirates selling the whole season in perfect BD quality for a few bucks would hurt DVD sales.
Basically, for the majority of consumers it's about convenience more than anything else. Make it more convenient to pirate than pay, and many will. As long as pirating is still illegal, involves a certain level of computer knowledge, and can be of questionable quality, it's still going to be limited to a small subset who are somewhat technical, "hobbyist" collectors, and/or don't care or understand the value of their "free" time (given HD streaming copies of most TV shows can be purchased for $2, which is worth about 2 minutes of your time to acquire if you make $60 an hour).
Try paying for anything in any currency without electricity. Try trading your equity in foocorp for food, without electricity. It's almost as though electricity is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and you were adding nothing.
I bought a cup of coffee that very way this morning. It wasn't very hard.
And read the parent post before yourself contributing nothing. We were talking semi-facetiously about the speed of a digital transaction vs. the durability of a physical one.
I never said anything about currency. This comparison was Bitcoin speculation vs "Wall Street" speculation as a whole. If it was compared just to other currency speculation that would be different, but Wall Street also speculates on many things with some intrinsic value.
There are physical things used for trade that do have some intrinsic value (which is not necessarily as much as their speculative value like gold, of course). Even the Bitcoin FAQ agrees with this...
Slashdot Mirror
Two *different* conversations, which I clearly stated with the subtle "copyright terms and validity actually have nothing to do with my point" that you kindly repeated. Thought it was a reasonable segue to the *other* topic but some people take more mallets to the head...
But anyway, pretending anyone with a copyright is the "mafia" is absurd. Why would anyone listen to anything else you say?
but you just spit a false comparison, and followed up with repeated defenses of your (rather insensitive to rape victims) retarded analogy.
No, dude, you have said the same thing multiple times here, and posting it more than once doesn't make it any more relevant. It was hyperbole to point out you should never, ever blame someone ELSE for YOUR actions (even if you in fact think the victim is an evil money grubbing corporation). I was not being insensitive to anyone any more than your comment/point is being insensitive to developmentally challenged people (I assume, right??)
Well, at least I never made any personal attacks, which you just did, awesome for you! Ad hominem and all that. You are a bad person, and should feel bad... no not really, because I unlike you I don't in fact think anyone should feel bad from a hypothetical debate on a web site. I hope you have a great Easter/Ishtar/day off whatever it's called today.
But more to the point, if you read my whole comment you would have seen: "I'm not even saying I'd make a different decision in your shoes, but I would not try to claim anyone else made me do it". And if you had read any of my other posts on the topic, you'd see I am very opposed to most copyright laws (look it up, no need to repeat myself). But I am also pro-copyright in some form, no matter whether you think you "need" that content a person/group created themselves even if they made it hard for you to acquire.
And for your last point - again read the whole thread before commenting. Analogy != equivalency, and hyperbole is simply a device that served exactly the purpose it was meant to in this case. I haven't judged anyone in this thread on piracy itself, and understand why someone might do it (and in the past have downloaded tv shows myself!), but my point is YOU made that decision, so grab some sack and admit it - don't pretend someone else forced you to take their cookie because they wouldn't share it.
Pointing out behaviour that increase the chances of a crime happening is _not_ blaming the victim.
If you are an objective observer before the fact warning someone of statistics, maybe not. If you are the person committing the offense or claiming the statistic somehow validates the offense, then yes, it is goddamn well blaming the victim. If you read the comment, it was the latter.
So, this was already covered above before you posted, but analogy != equivalence. Go read it, no need to go over it again.
Second, it was hyperbole for effect. Look up the definition of hyperbole, I think it did its job here.
And third, it's completely incorrect to say piracy/copyright infringement has no victim just because you don't like the victim. I could make hyperbolic analogies about that, as well, but I think you get the point.
As far as your example, that's fine, you decided for yourself that it either did not violate your moral code or somehow "you tried hard enough" and didn't care. Not everyone would make that decision just because "my mom needs it". But don't blame the copyright owner for your action, have some balls and admit you made the decision yourself. I'm not even saying I'd make a different decision in your shoes, but I would not try to claim anyone else made me do it. I also drive over the speed limit sometimes, but if I get pulled over I admit I was driving too fast, I don't whine to the cop about how the speed limit is too low.
And yes, you can argue harm when someone can't buy something. Maybe they are negotiating the international rights. Or maybe, like, Disney (a real douche of a copyright holder, I agree, and I am in fact against 90% of the current copyright laws) they prefer to make their content unavailable and re-release it once in a while. Doesn't matter, it's just another case of blaming the copyright owner because you can't have something of theirs right damn now gimme gimme I want!
I don't know why you have to "be active in fantasy circles" to hear about it. I read all of the books just because I like fantasy and it's been at the top of the best selling fantasy novels for the past decade. If you are a fantasy lover and have ever been to a bookstore or Amazon, you will have seen many references to it. If you aren't, who cares? Clearly you don't seem to even realize it's a longstanding fantasy series, so you don't qualify as one of "us weirdos", sorry :)
Hah. Given Adam Smith practically defined the concept of the intrinsic theory of value, I beg to differ. Maybe you should actually READ books like the Wealth of Nations and Communist Manifesto before trying to comment on them?
The difference between tulip bulbs and Bitcoin is that using tulip bulbs as currency doesn't offer any advantage over using coins
Not true. When Bitcoins crash you will feel like an idiot, but when tulip bulbs crash you can still have a kick-ass garden.
I wholeheartedly agree that the studios screw the CG effects workers. I have a lot of friends in that industry (which up in the Bay Area is not unionized) and their contract re-negotiations are definitely borderline illegal. They are some of the more talented people I know with some of the lowest salaries for their expertise; like the game industry, it's tough to negotiate when your employer knows you love your work.
But those are industry *employees*, not customers, so it wasn't his point. And not a SINGLE one of those effects people that I know thinks piracy of their movies to "stick it to their employer" is a good idea, because a large part of their income (up to 1/2, in some cases) is based on bonuses they get from the movie's box office gross.
Not sure if you are joking, but my basic analogy had two parts, and his was missing the key one.
No, you didn't get my point at all, just made it what you wanted for your point. Sigh.
My point was I don't care what the illegal activity is, don't blame the victim. If you believe piracy/copyright infringement is ok, then go ahead and do it, but also get some balls and admit the reason is YOU think it's ok, not that someone else coerced you into doing it.
Copyright terms and validity actually have nothing to do with my point (it's your point that used mine as a straw man). But, to go in that direction... I do think copyright infringement should be illegal and have a penalty, but anyone doing it for personal use it should only be penalized for the price of the content (like, $25 max per movie). Maybe some nominal fine as well, but the current $25k max is insane. And if you can prove you paid for the content already (like, bought a DVD or digital stream and then torrented it) it should not be illegal as the point of copyright is a licensed right, not a physical copy. Of course professionals doing it is a different story, but that's already criminal.
I also agree with you (and am maybe even more extreme) on copyright extensions. For most cases, I think the copyright of media should be limited to an initial useful term to realize profit (for example, 5 years for a movie is far more than any studios plan for when estimating profitability; individual works like novels may need a longer term, but in no way should extend significantly past the death of the author).
But most of what you said is not true for the vast majority of users (ie. the 99.9% not using a Linux desktop to watch TV). I don't use iTunes much, but on VUDU it's 2 clicks on a remote to purchase and one more to play back. If it's on Netflix it's one click to play and that's it. Streaming starts instantly (no download needed), and on VUDU if you want to download it's usually at almost the max 30Mbps speed of my ISP. Both are DRMed, but there is no pain whatsoever to stream or play a download on my TV, PC, or tablet (almost always on the TV for me since I'm not a big fan of watching on a PC - I'm usually using the PC while watching ;)
And "paying for the service" is not a pro/con unless you think piracy is fine, in which case the rest of the arguments are entirely moot. I'm not a big fan of piracy (since IMO watching a silly TV show is not a fundamental human right as some seem to think) but on the other hand I can't find any fault in someone who pays for the content and then torrents it to get a DRM-free copy...
Actually, he does. An analogy is a matching inference or relation, not an equivalency.
"day : light :: night : dark" doesn't mean day == night.
Doesn't matter what the illegal activity is, when the person committing it blames the victim it's wrong. Using a hyperbole to make the analogy is a common rhetorical device. Obviously there is no equivalent harm, that's why I said so IN MY POST. Sigh.
Who is the victim in your analogy?
Did you read my whole comment, ie, the "clearly the harm is much lower/almost non-existant" part? You can most definitely compare an argument that the illegal activity (I never said crime or theft, again READ IT) was the *victim's* fault to any other illegal activity where someone makes such a ridiculous claim. The hyperbolic comparison was, of course, the POINT.
Actually, HBO subs are $15-20 / month, and basic cable is ~$40. And including the cost of your Internet access into the price makes about as much sense as including your rent into the cost of a meal you made in your kitchen. And you can't download a torrent without Internet access, either...
Also, unless you signed up for a long-term contract with your cable/satellite provider HBO is month-to-month. In fact I have several friends who only add it specifically when GOT is on :)
Anyway, if you want to watch it on demand you do need cable and an HBO sub, that's true. But that's really no difference from watching it live (or DVRed) by broadcast. There are many networks who make their shows available next day for $2 ea. HBO waits until the season is over before they do that so as not to cannibalize subscription revenue, but they still do make it available on iTunes, VUDU, Amazon, etc without any need for cable or a sub...
I'm not saying everyone should have seen it or even want to have seen it. But to not even hear of it takes a great deal of effort.
Especially since he's posting on a Slashdot article *about* the show...
Wha? Ok, Hollywood is out for itself and no one else, sure, but "slaves"? Hyperbole, much? In fact, it's not even hyperbole, I can't even come up with any analogy that makes the slightest sense with that one. Seriously, it's not food and water, it's just a stupid TV show.
It's funny, because they currently sell their 1-hour episodes for $2-3 each, which when you think about it really is NOT a lot of money. If you make $10/hr that's only 15-20 minutes of time/work equivalent. And I'd bet many /. users are more like $60/hr, which is 2-3 minutes of time. So, if you are taking longer than that to download the show and set it up to play back, you really aren't using your "free" time very efficiently.
So, maybe HBO, etc needs run an ad campaign explaining how your time is valuable and downloads aren't the best use of it. And of course then make their content available the same day it airs on TV in a convenient, inexpensive way, ideally in a non-intrusive format playable on a wide range of devices :)
That's still an extra $30-40 a month beyond the $15-20 HBO subscription for crap they don't want...
People pirate it because the only way to watch it legally is to subscribe to HBO. Their business model induces the piracy.
Their business model induces piracy about as much as a woman's clothing induces rape. Pirate the show if you want (clearly the harm is much lower/almost non-existant) but don't pretend it's the content owner's fault you did it.
Yeah, HBO's revenue is mostly from (a very expensive) subscription and then DVD/BD sales of the show later. If the show is good enough (and several HBO shows have been) they actually have people paying twice to watch it same-day and then have the collection later...
But there are definitely situations where piracy would hurt them - for example, widespread access to the show BEFORE it airs on HBO would hurt subscriptions, and professional pirates selling the whole season in perfect BD quality for a few bucks would hurt DVD sales.
Basically, for the majority of consumers it's about convenience more than anything else. Make it more convenient to pirate than pay, and many will. As long as pirating is still illegal, involves a certain level of computer knowledge, and can be of questionable quality, it's still going to be limited to a small subset who are somewhat technical, "hobbyist" collectors, and/or don't care or understand the value of their "free" time (given HD streaming copies of most TV shows can be purchased for $2, which is worth about 2 minutes of your time to acquire if you make $60 an hour).
Try paying for anything in any currency without electricity. Try trading your equity in foocorp for food, without electricity. It's almost as though electricity is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and you were adding nothing.
I bought a cup of coffee that very way this morning. It wasn't very hard.
And read the parent post before yourself contributing nothing. We were talking semi-facetiously about the speed of a digital transaction vs. the durability of a physical one.
We were comparing Bitcoins and tulip bulbs (physical objects). Sadly, Wall Street is very tulip deficient these days.
I never said anything about currency. This comparison was Bitcoin speculation vs "Wall Street" speculation as a whole. If it was compared just to other currency speculation that would be different, but Wall Street also speculates on many things with some intrinsic value.
There are physical things used for trade that do have some intrinsic value (which is not necessarily as much as their speculative value like gold, of course). Even the Bitcoin FAQ agrees with this...