|
| Thread: OMG You Guys Won't Believe This: Mother Owes For Illegal Downloads |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
stankelbenet
Adventuring Hero
bringer of nostalgia & darknes
|
posted June 21, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's called sharing not stealing.
Maybe next time sharing will be another term of stealing.
Everyone Sharing is bad ok. Never share again 
It's a matter of how you share. sharing something of material like food is not stealing of course because the amount of food doesn't change. The socalled sharing happening on the internet is more like copying. It's like one guy buying a bestseller book and copying all the pages and lay the copies on a square so everybody can take a copy. That's violating the laws of copyright. Or even better: Quote:
Is it ok to copy a 10$ bill, and give everyone you know one of those?
So by sharing food the quantity doesn't grow but when sharing files it does.Quote:
Then their profit goes to people who have stock in those companies..most of the time again just average people. So you are not only stealing from 'J. Lopez' you are stealing from 'John Q. Worker'.
exactly what I tried to say.Quote:
if this is "stealing", what are libraries? What are radios? They give us free music and books after all.
They have paid a permission so they are allowed to lend the stuff to other people. It's the same with schoolbooks. They cost a fortune because the schools have to pay a permission.
Alright antihackers; instead of calling it stealing we now call it illegal copying. Then the H4x0r5 can't complain about the use of words.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 09:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
if this is "stealing", what are libraries? What are radios? They give us free music and books after all.
"intellectual property" is a ridiculous term. If I can get those for free elsewhere, in public property places like libraries, why can't I download it, for Christ's sake?
What is this "intellectual property"? Should it prohibit me from, say, hearing a song till I pay for it? THan why radios and youtube are legal?
It's OK for you to listen to the radio without paying because the radio station pays the copyright royalties for you. The artists get their money and you get your music. The radio stations can afford to do this because they get paid by various other companies to play commercials to you in between songs.
Public libraries are the same way. You can read books because the library pays the copyright royalties for you. However, the library doesn't run on advertisements - it runs on taxpayer money instead.
Youtube is a bit trickier. Technically, it isn't legal to post copyrighted material on Youtube unless someone is paying the royalties. Youtube does regularly remove copyrighted material from their site. However, it is hard for any company with paid employees to keep up with 50 million unpaid idiots posting junk 24/7, so most of the time people get away with it. Youtube itself gets away with this because they have enough money to pay lawyers to build an indestructible legal bunker to hide in.
It is possible to construct a website that allows free downloads of copyrighted material by having the website pay the royalties for its customers, and in exchange the customer must watch an advertisement so that the website can make money too (same business model as the radio). There are a few websites that do this, but they are unfortunately not as popular as straight-up piracy. 
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
As far as libraries go it's a completely different thing. The library buys the book and only loans it to one person at a time. In order for two people to use a title the library has to buy two books. For three people to use it they have to buy three book, etc.
An example is with software. I don't know if they still do it, but even Microsoft says/said in their license agreement that you can have the software installed on more than one computer AS LONG AS only one copy is being used at once.
With music CDs it's been upheld by the courts that you can sell the CD to another person and that's legal. But by selling it, you give up your own right to further use it. If you sell it or give it away and keep a copy for yourself and continue using it, THEN it becomes illegal. Bottom line is that when you purchase the music you have a license to use ONE copy of it.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:00 AM |
|
|
It's not completely different thing. You all sadly fail to see that the idiocy of intellectual property suddenly poofs when "person X" pays for it. Doesn't matter that person X in library actually distributes the book to hundreds of people, and they all ABSORB that intellectual "property" into them. In other words, they all get for free and legal what's illegal with slightly different method.
Totally pointless. Libraries should be banned (how many people can read one book there, 100000? Now think how profitable would it be if there were no libraries and every person under the sun had to BUY that book instead! BAN LIBRARIES! @_o)
Why is one form of sharing good, other bad? Is it ok if I send someone the song and delete it immediately after listening to it? Works the same way as borrowing in library. You have only 1 physical copy. What if I sell it to someone? My private copy. I can do it, right? Yeah. No profits for your record companies for that one.
Now what will happen if I simply multiplicate it instead of giving it to someone? does it cause harm that I kept something I gave to other person anyway?
No, it doesn't. The other person did not pay for it, because he/she got it free from me. I already paid, so they can't charge me twice! So yeah, it DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I GAVE UP MY COPY OR DOUBLED IT BEFORE GIVING IT TO SOMEONE. Don't you see? It's so obvious. With sharing, or passing something to someone, there is no loss to any company - and sharing is socially accepted. Why copying isn't? IT ALL GIVES THE SAME OUTCOME!
Sharing should be banned, or the whole intellectual property concept is a huge waste of time.
because the don't-copy rule is essentially worthless. As described above, it causes no financial harm to the distributor: If I want to sell my copy that I legally own, I do it, they don't get anything from it. They also don't lose anything if the copy magically doubles and remains in my pocket. So it's simple, greedy logic of "we want MORE" that I won't support because I don't find it ok on ANY matter- logical, moral, financial or any other.
Stealing is entirely differnt. The person who has been robbed DIRECTLY loses something. Now copying, lol. As I described above, there is NO PHYSICAL LOSS or any loss at all when I simply copy my file before giving it to someone. So why that stupid concept?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:10 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:12, 21 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
it ok if I send someone the song and delete it immediately after listening to it?
If you paid for it yes. It is absolutely ok. Because there is still only one copy, and it was paid for.
Quote:
Works the same way as borrowing in library. You have only 1 physical copy. What if I sell it to someone? My private copy. I can do it, right? Yeah. No profits for your record companies for that one.
No..it is like borrowing a book from a library, running off hundreds of copies and then giving it away. Which would be wrong.
Quote:
Now what will happen if I simply multiplicate it instead of giving it to someone? does it cause harm that I kept something I gave to other person anyway?
then it doesn't affect anything or anybody. I have lost count how many times I had to transfer a vhs tape to a DVD disk because the VHS tape was getting too old.
Quote:
No, it doesn't. The other person did not pay for it, because he/she got it free from me. I already paid, so they can't charge me twice! So yeah, it DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I GAVE UP MY COPY OR DOUBLED IT BEFORE GIVING IT TO SOMEONE. Don't you see? It's so obvious. With sharing, or passing something to someone, there is no loss to any company - and sharing is socially accepted. Why copying isn't? IT ALL GIVES THE SAME OUTCOME!
As we said, there is a vast difference between a few and a LOT. But even a few is Stealing. Justification not withstanding. Would you still be so adamant if she had robbed a store of 1000's of CD's?
What you do with your one copy is not really a concern to anybody. You can give it away, burn it or whatever. When that one copy you bought suddenly becomes 1000's...and you start giving it away..then you might as well broke into a store and stolen the CD's.
Edit : Sorry 'sharing' these things is absolutely no different from stealing a CD from a shop.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sharing should be banned, or the whole intellectual property concept is a huge waste of time.
You don't need to ban it - you just need to obsolete it. Give your intellectual property away for free. Make money on advertising and T-shirts.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it doesn't. The other person did not pay for it, because he/she got it free from me. I already paid, so they can't charge me twice! So yeah, it DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I GAVE UP MY COPY OR DOUBLED IT BEFORE GIVING IT TO SOMEONE. Don't you see? It's so obvious. With sharing, or passing something to someone, there is no loss to any company - and sharing is socially accepted. Why copying isn't? IT ALL GIVES THE SAME OUTCOME!
You don't get it. For torrent sites, just imagine the amount of things that get downloaded all for free. Giving your friend one copy is one thing, but thousands, tens of thousands or even a million people downloading a movie or downloading an album for free can have disatourous effects on record companies and artists. How can you not see that? Try reading more up on record businesses and all that and read more articles about this because you're sadly missing the point.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What you do with your one copy is not really a concern to anybody. You can give it away, burn it or whatever. When that one copy you bought suddenly becomes 1000's...and you start giving it away..then you might as well broke into a store and stolen the CD's.
Edit : Sorry 'sharing' these things is absolutely no different from stealing a CD from a shop.
Well if your opinions on that matter are so extreme and lawful, I can't help. Notice that stealing and mutliplying something you have in your pocket ARE different things, though. It's the principle of why I think piracy is ok. BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOSS FOR THE PRODUCER. If someone doesn't copy, he won't buy it because he can't afford it, so it's no money ANYWAY.
If you can't make money out of it, banning it and charging people for ridiculous sums is simply evil greed, "it's ours, go burn in hell", even though there is NO FINANCIAL DIFFERENCE for the producer whether that poor person copied the file or not.
Stealing hurts in a VERY different way, I find the logic behind copying=stealing EXTREMELY weird and entirely pointless, but whatever, I definitely won't convince you 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't get it. For torrent sites, just imagine the amount of things that get downloaded all for free. Giving your friend one copy is one thing, but thousands, tens of thousands or even a million people downloading a movie or downloading an album for free can have disatourous effects on record companies and artists. How can you not see that? Try reading more up on record businesses and all that and read more articles about this because you're sadly missing the point.
I am not.
1. The artists earn like 100000 times more than a common man, they need not to defend them lol.
2. If someone is poor, he won't buy it anyway, but look for more "legal" ways of obtaining it for free i.e. buying from someone (which doesn't give any profit to the producer), listening to the radio, watching it on YT. THE EFFECT IS ALL THE SAME. NO PROFIT. Don't you see it? What else can it be if not the profit? The sting to ego that someone listens to my work for free? don't make me laugh.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Give your intellectual property away for free
In other words I'm supposed to starve to death just because you want to steal my intellectual property from me because it's not something physical that you can pick up and has mass? I make my living creating ones and zeros and you want me to work for free?
I used to build houses for a living. Is it OK if I get paid for that or should I give it away for free also?
I have gotten paid for working on people's cars. Am I supposed to do that for free?
I used to own a bicycle shop. Was I supposed to give the bicycles away for free?
Just exactly which part of my life am I supposed to give you that you are willing to actually pay for? Because when you expect me to give away my intellectual property, you are stealing my life by stealing the little bit of precious time I have on this earth.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:28 AM |
|
|
They may earn more than the common man but you're forgetting record labels. They're going to lose thousands or millions of customers because of illegal downloading. Do you even realise how much money that they're losing because of this? You clearly don't. Try learning more about how the music business works, please. 
We're not talking about a few things being shared but thousands. I can't get any more clearer than this and it's not like you'll ever agree with me even though I know what the hell I'm talking about (music's my thing you see), so I just don't know what else to say to you.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:28 AM |
|
|
Except there are people who can afford it, but choose to download it instead. Once you put it to a site like Kazaa, you have NO control over who downloads it. It could be some millionaire, who thinks "Hey, why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?". You think rich people are above getting something for free if they can? Sorry, they are not. So yes, that 'copying' DOES hurt the music industry just as bad as going in and stealing those physical CD's. But I won't be able to convince you.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They may earn more than the common man but you're forgetting record labels. They're going to lose thousands or millions of customers because of illegal downloading. Do you even realise how much money that they're losing because of this? You clearly don't. Try learning more about how the music business works, please.
We're not talking about a few things being shared but thousands. I can't get any more clearer than this and it's not like you'll ever agree with me even though I know what the hell I'm talking about (music's my thing you see), so I just don't know what else to say to you.
Dear William,
it doesn't matter whether you know or don't know all about music. The intellectual property is an abstract concept that doesn't have anything to do with either music, TV, books or anything else. You don't have to be profficient in any of those to understand its principles because it's simple logic.
Please convince me that lack of copying would give ANY profits to the precious record studios in countries like mine, where people barely have enough for a living. Would I buy a CD ? Never. It's too expensive. I'd live with YT, radios and stuff, never ever buying anything if I were righteous, as you seem to be.
Your companies would get ZERO PROFIT from me ANYWAY. So why bother whether I copy or not? I WILL NOT BUY IT ANYWAY. It's only that you guys can't stand someone doing something for free, even though you would have NO benefits of him NOT doing it. It's evil, you know. It really is.
Until you convince me (and I'm sure you won't  ), my reasoning won't change. Just don't ragequit like Father just did, go ahead and try Same to you, Mytical. NO, I would NOT buy the CDs if I couldn't copy them and get them for free, it would be like diamonds to me: something I would never see in my life. Don't you see my point? I won't buy it ANYWAY, so why do you try to limit me if my actions have ZERO OUTCOME for the producer?
Binabik: Can you make two bikes out of one? Do I need to explain why your examples are bad?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:35 AM |
|
|
It's not just about the profits of the record companies. It also raises the prices for those of us who are honest and actually pay for their music. And it raises the price a LOT. So in that sense the pirates are stealing from me and millions of other honest people.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not just about the profits of the record companies. It also raises the prices for those of us who are honest and actually pay for their music. And it raises the price a LOT. So in that sense the pirates are stealing from me and millions of other honest people.
How? Does it matter whether I copy it or not buy it? The actual amount of people buying it WILL NOT CHANGE. Because those who copy will not buy it anyway if they can't afford it. And in like 99.9%, they can't.
Don't you see?
it's easy for you, rich guys from US, to tell us we're thieves lol. If I had your earnings instead of 1/10 of what you get with prices actually HIGHER than yours (lol, the irony!), I would be "righteous" too >_>
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:38 AM |
|
Edited by william at 11:39, 21 Jun 2009.
|
When you buy a CD, that profit goes towards the artist and also the record companies. no matter how poor the country you're living in is, it's still stealing. I admit that I download now and again because I don't have the money at the current time, but I'm planning to pay for it all. I realise that what I'm doing is bad and realise that people are losing money because of what I'm doing. People uploading stuff to youtube is also illegal. If it wasn't then why does stuff get taken down? It's because the record labels and/or artists are going to lose money because of that. Lack of copying would provide more profits to record companies. If that wasn't true then explain how Sony BMG for example is so rich? They're profits must come from somewhere. Nowadays, they are losing money just like most other record labels are BECAUSE of this copying and illegal file sharing. I know I can't ever convince you but whatever. No I won't do what Father did either. lol
And just like to say I agree with what Binabik said in the post above Doomforges. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Binabik: Can you make two bikes out of one? Do I need to explain why your examples are bad?
My examples aren't bad. The point is that I should get paid for my time and labor regardless of whether it's something physical that I build, like a house or bicycle, or if it's intellectual property. In either case I should get paid for my labor.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:39 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:42, 21 Jun 2009.
|
Actually I have no issues with you doing it for free. None, at all. It's your life. My issue is with the justification of it. It's not really your fault though, well only partially. People think it is ok. Youtube, Napster, etc has convinced people "Its not stealing, it's 'sharing'" No..sharing is making a couple of copies for your friends. That is sharing. It's still stealing, but at least it really doesn't impact anything.
When you go from 1 or 2 to thousands and thousands, then it becomes Piracy, and Piracy is illegal.
Edit : Here it goes with the anti american sentiment again. *sighs*. You do know that all American's don't live in mansions, drive limos, and have maids and butlers right? Probably not...
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
When you buy a CD, that profit goes towards the artist and also the record companies. no matter how poor the country you're living in is, it's still stealing. I admit that I download now and again because I don't have the money at the current time, but I'm planning to pay for it all. I realise that what I'm doing is bad and realise that people are losing money because of what I'm doing.
they are losing money ONLY if you choose to DOWNLOAD it instead of BUYING it.
But if your choice is: download it or SKIP IT ENTIRELY, they lose NOTHING at all.
Please prove me wrong. Come on, show me HOW do they lose ANY cash when I DON'T BUY IT instead of downloading it.
(no, as I already said, I won't buy it, that option is not possible -> can't afford it).
The only difference here is whether I have it or not -> the profits for the companies don't change at all in BOTH cases.
So why bother?
Please answer that question: Mytical, Binabik and William
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 21, 2009 11:46 AM |
|
|
But your logic is flawed. People who CAN afford it DO download it for free. And it is because of these sites where people who CAN'T afford it post or take music from. So it DOES affect the business' bottom line. Of course, now you'll say "What other people do, I have no control over." but hey...go ahead.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
