Making piracy right

[Hobie-wan]

In cases like TV series where they are aiming mostly for advertising cash and it was accessible to e.g. the U.S. audience for free, I really don't blame people e.g. outside the U.S. from not feeling ethically challenged when pirating it.

But then you've also got cases like the UK where people pay the TV license so they aren't getting their TV 'free', and then people in other countries are freeloading.

[Xeogred]

Who can prove so-and-so was on their computer when X was downloaded.

lol

Semi-quote there, saw an article today about how Japan enforced a new anti-piracy law cracking down on this stuff a few months ago and to date, not a single person has been put on trial over it.

It's a double edged sword for me. I like to authentically own things when I can, chances are like 10x higher I'll buy something I may have pirated before (shows, music, anime, games, etc) than if I were going in blind, for many cases. In the case of obscure/old anime with fansubs and older games via emulation, exposure helps keep them alive.

tl;dr I barely skimmed the thread and am dead beat tired at the moment, but yeah it's not a terrible sin. And hopefully someday the government realizes they can't do a damn thing about it in the long run.

[Ivo]

But then you've also got cases like the UK where people pay the TV license so they aren't getting their TV 'free', and then people in other countries are freeloading.

A good point, but not entirely correct. Shows produced by the BBC are (at least allegedly) sponsored by the TV license, but are usually aired in other countries in other networks - presumably because the BBC sold them. I think this is typically more cultural stuff like wildlife documentaries and other "public service" kind of shows, the best of which get exported to countries that do not contribute to the TV license.

I'm guessing that piracy of TV-license sponsored stuff that has not been sold to other networks is very rare, but certainly in such cases you have a point - so once again it would be better for someone like Kingmohd that would pirate the shows anyway to e.g. buy one or a few of the DVDs to imitate a "pay what you want" scheme if that is possible, if he isn't going to buy the whole series that is better than nothing and is some support for the content creators.

[RCBH928]

Not sure why everyone is upset , the only person who understands this thread is Ivo.

Although I am not looking for a "pay what you want" method, its not like I want to pay $3 for a 10 seasons, but I certainly do not want to pay $240 either . As a matter of fact, I will do not mind paying $240 if I was going to be a collector or going to view 10 seasons many times. The truth is, its just 1 view , is it really worth $240 when this show was aired for free and you could store it on a Tivo like device, or just pay $8 for Netflix and watch whatever you want or FREE on Hulu?

The high fluctuation of the price is the issue here , from FREE to extremely expensive . Any way I think I will just figure this out on my own, I am really not sure why people got upset over me trying to pay the creators. I though people would find it ethically correct to do.

[pakopako]

But then you've also got cases like the UK where people pay the TV license so they aren't getting their TV 'free', and then people in other countries are freeloading.

A good point, but not entirely correct. Shows produced by the BBC are (at least allegedly) sponsored by the TV license, but are usually aired in other countries in other networks - presumably because the BBC sold them. I think this is typically more cultural stuff like wildlife documentaries and other "public service" kind of shows, the best of which get exported to countries that do not contribute to the TV license.

"Public service" brings up a strange point in my head -- what about showings that have been on Public Broadcasting television? Other than NOVA, National Geographic, Antiques Roadshow, there have been shows like Red Dwarf on there.

At this point, does it become "pay what you please" in terms of downloading the show, and then donating to your local PBS?

[jp1]

Not sure why everyone is upset , the only person who understands this thread is Ivo.

Although I am not looking for a "pay what you want" method, its not like I want to pay $3 for a 10 seasons, but I certainly do not want to pay $240 either . As a matter of fact, I will do not mind paying $240 if I was going to be a collector or going to view 10 seasons many times. The truth is, its just 1 view , is it really worth $240 when this show was aired for free and you could store it on a Tivo like device, or just pay $8 for Netflix and watch whatever you want or FREE on Hulu?

The high fluctuation of the price is the issue here , from FREE to extremely expensive . Any way I think I will just figure this out on my own, I am really not sure why people got upset over me trying to pay the creators. I though people would find it ethically correct to do.

It's just a suggestion but perhaps if you are looking to make ammends and you viewed the content only once and deleted it then you could just find a rental option that fits your price requirements. Of course ethically that doesn't entitle you to keep said download. I'm sure the companies would be happy to be compensated in any way. I don't understand the point in doing any of it if you intend to continue with pirating content though. If you feel wrong about it and want to correct that, then you certainly have to stop doing it to set your mind at ease. However, at the end of the day it is you that will have to judge what makes you comfortable with your own morals.

Not a single person who will condemn you for "stealing" or pirating anything, on this site or anywhere else for that matter, goes through their life without doing something that could be and probably is looked at as morally/ethically wrong. When an issue comes up that allows people to fuel their own pride because they take the moral high ground they will never miss an oppurtunity to do so. That is why everyone is "upset".

Of course if we were to bring a topic to hand in which that same person is not so morally or ethically perfect we will have a load of justifications and excuses...such as those given from people who pirate in these type of threads. I don't know where this world would be without soap boxes.

Now, let me step off mine.

Edit: Incidentally, General Norris...I would not like it if you decided to cut my salary. I would LOVE it though if you came by my desk and said "Hey you know that report you turned in last week, well it was pretty good so we are just going to keep on paying you over and over for it." I do see your point about not being a douche but the salary argument is a hard one to stand behind. Nothing to do with the thread, I just always thought that was a poor defense against piracy.

In my opinion copyright laws should be adjusted to allow for a much shorter time period than they currently cover. If I write a book for instance, and it takes me a year to write said book perhaps I should be compensated for a year worth of effort. If I build a house I will not be paid on an endless loop for as long as it is lived in. I'm not making an argument for piracy, just pointing out that maybe there is some hypocrisy in copyright law.

[Erik_Twice]

There's no hypocresy nor contradiction.

Someone pays me to access my property. It doesn't matter if it's a rent, a copy of my diary or a fee to ride in Disneyland, what matters is that it's mine and people want to pay me for it.

That you make more or less money by other means is not a valid objection. I own it, I can sell it. Even if artists were loaded and selling words were as easy as selling real state they are just selling the product of his work, the most basic and important right a worker can have.

You are free to try write a book for endless loops of money if think it's so easy!

[jp1]

There's no hypocresy nor contradiction.

Someone pays me to access my property. It doesn't matter if it's a rent, a copy of my diary or a fee to ride in Disneyland, what matters is that it's mine and people want to pay me for it.

That you make more or less money by other means is not a valid objection. I own it, I can sell it. Even if artists were loaded and selling words were as easy as selling real state they are just selling the product of his work, the most basic and important right a worker can have.

You are free to try write a book for endless loops of money if think it's so easy!

I don't remember claiming it was easy. Is building a house easy? Does the architect get paid again and again? Rides at disneyland require constant maintenance and crew to upkeep. An ebook or movie can be sold an infinite amount of times with very little cost to the publisher, independant, or whomever is selling it. Me being free to do it has nothing to do with my point. The creators of media are not the only artists who exist in the world they are just the only ones who get paid many times over for a single piece of work. To an extent it makes sense because movies/music/games all cost a lot of money to develop and that money needs to be recouped before profits even begin, however...how long is it fair to keep cashing in on the same old intellectual property before it is enough. I don't think you would be singing the same tune if the makers of televisions, radios, furniture, clothing, or anything else that isn't essential to our survival started just deciding they need to sell for exorbitant prices because they want more money.

What if the cheapest car cost a million bucks? It's their right to set the price at whatever because it belongs to them right? I guess you would happily walk 50 miles if you don't have public transit? There are limits that should be set on such things so that 90% of the wealth in the country isn't sitting in the same few peoples hands. In case you missed it, I stated I wasn't arguing in favor of piracy...If the copyright laws protected intellectual property until a reasonable profit was made or for a shorter amount of time we as a consumer would benefit from more reasonable prices, I'm not sure what you have against that.

Copyright laws protect big media corporations and let them freely set whatever standards they want because those same corporations make huge "donations" to the government to make it that way. It's a valid sentiment you are expressing by pointing out that everyone is free to go and become an author, movie director, game dev, etc...but it takes for granted a lot of hard working people who do not get paid a fair wage and without whom we couldn't make it as a society. Teachers for instance should make a lot more money than they do. Why shouldn't teachers receive a subsidy for having helped mold that top selling author? Where do you draw the line and why? I'm not against anyone earning a good living or even becoming wealthy, I simply think that we shouldn't have to be a nation ruled by media and cellphones. I know that as an active participant in these things that makes me a bit of a hypocrite myself but what can I say? As long as there are people who are willing to accept whatever big corporations decide is right then we will never see any change.

Another question raised by this "intellectual property" argument is why if I am purchasing access to the content and not a physical object should I need to pay across multiple platforms to access what I already paid for? Development costs is a good reason if we are talking about something that has been remade from the ground up but how about emulated stuff like they have so much of on the Wii? If I paid for access to Zelda for the N64 for instance, I should still have access to that non-existant property when it is released in exactly the same format for the Wii. It isn't right to sell it to me with one explanation of what I am purchasing and then switch your terms later when you want more money.

It's a ridiculous extreme but let's say for the sake of argument that you love a certain IP and have been supporting it and playing it faithfully for years...suddenly the company decides "We should start selling this for $5000 a copy." You stand by your position that it is theirs to do with what they wish and that is a totally reasonable price because it is simply what they want it to be? Of course I am making a point with exagerration but what I'm getting at is that you are stating it as if there is no limit.

Vendor:
"I own this lima bean and if you want this lima bean you will pay me whatever amount I see fit. At that point you can use the lima bean in any way you see fit but you don't truly own said bean. It still belongs to me. I might want to sell access to the bean to others in order to increase my profits, and should you ever lose the physical bean and want to look at it again I will need the full retail value again from you for the access you have already purchased."

Me:
"Are you out of your fucking mind?"

General Norris:
"That makes complete sense...here is my money sir. Thank you and good day!"



Italics so you know that part was a joke.

[8bit]

This topic has gotten out of hand IMHO. Some people need to settle down. There is a concept called supply and demand that drives our free market. Maybe yall should remind yourself what that means.

If a company wants to try to overcharge for something that people in general agree is too much, then they won't buy it. If the company is driven to make more sales to those not buying they will bring the price down.

Plenty of people think $349 is too much for a new Wii U. So they will not buy it until the price comes down. Nintendo knows this and the price will come down eventually if/when they deem it necessary. The market is speaking to Nintendo when they do or do not make a purchase. It's the companies job to listen to this feedback and make adjustments as needed. It is the consumers job to be patient or be willing to find a cheaper substitute.

Or like in Apples case, they want to carry a premium brand and part of that brand is their very well thought out premium pricing scheme. You can argue that the price is worth it or not. Thats just personal opinion. But if you think $999 is too much for their entry level laptop that does not give you the right to steal one.

People like to think they HAVE THE RIGHT to obtain media through online pirating because its easy and they think no one sees it happening. Most of those same people who pirate multimedia would never dream of stealing from a Best Buy or Walmart so they shouldn't ever consider it justifiable just because it's downloading it from the web instead.

IGN covered the the topic about having to repurchase media across platforms very effectively in this recent article. Its worth the 3 minute read. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/26/ ... tally-fair

Full disclaimer, I still pirate plenty! BUT I know damn well it is wrong and that one day I may pay the piper for it. When my Xbox 360 got banned for being modded and playing downloaded games, I was not mad even a little, they deserved to catch and ban my xbox, I was in the wrong, and I told all of my friends and wife the same thing without hesitation. It was their right to take action for me stealing their intellectual properties. And I still give them props today for throwing down the ban hammer on 10,000+ people including myself.

[Erik_Twice]

how long is it fair to keep cashing in on the same old intellectual property before it is enough.

How long is it fair for you to living in the same old house before it is enough? Same question.

If it's mine, it's mine.

What if the cheapest car cost a million bucks?

What if no woman ever wanted to sleep with us?

Consent is consent mate. I can't force someone to give up his rights or tolerate his opinion as long as it's the same as mine, it's just silly.