Thread: The Real Effects of Pirating

ROFL!

Funny and true.

arrrrr!

No shyt, they want to force you not being able to skip movie intros next.

Only a fool would buy a DVD or CD.

red X. please repost

ha...so true...never thought about it. I'll never buy another dvd again.

I like pirates like the ones who left the ship for Chunk and the other Goonies to find and save their town....they were saints...

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

Only a fool would buy a DVD or CD.

So . . . what about the artist who performs the song, the writer who wrote it? Presumably, you get paid for your work. You don't think they should be paid for theirs? That's what people are doing, in my opinion, when they pirate a CD or a book-on-CD: they are stealing from an individual or a group who have worked very hard to produce a product in a hugely competitive field.

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

So . . . what about the artist who performs the song, the writer who wrote it? Presumably, you get paid for your work. You don't think they should be paid for theirs? That's what people are doing, in my opinion, when they pirate a CD or a book-on-CD: they are stealing from an individual or a group who have worked very hard to produce a product in a hugely competitive field.

what about them?

if they dont like the risks associated with their jobs, they should choose a different profession

Do you consider stealing a risk of a particular profession? Theft is theft; it's not a hazard unique to writing and publishing. And you would treat a thief how if he stole from you?

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

So . . . what about the artist who performs the song, the writer who wrote it? Presumably, you get paid for your work. You don't think they should be paid for theirs? That's what people are doing, in my opinion, when they pirate a CD or a book-on-CD: they are stealing from an individual or a group who have worked very hard to produce a product in a hugely competitive field.

Lets all cry then. Maybe Weider should sue p90x for reducing sales.

The idea that piracy has caused a loss of income for the RIAA or MPAA is bullshit. It's a lie.

Copyright infringement has been on the rise since 1998, yet the movie and music companies posted profit after profit. Especially the movie industry. Even the downturn in the economy has had a negligible effect.

The only one that can, sort of, complain is the RIAA. Their income did take somewhat of a dive. First, they produced a much smaller amount in 2000-2001 and their sells fell just as much. The other reason is the Internet, and it has nothing to do with pirating. It used to be that they could produce album after album with only one or two good tracks and charge the full rate. Now that people can buy songs piecemeal, that has cut into their income. Neither of which has to do with pirating.

Besides, these are the same fucktard industries that wanted to make the punishment for copyright infringement a 10 year prison sentence. Yes, you copy a song or a movie, you go to jail for 10 years. Yeah, that load of shit didn't pass, but it does tell you what sort of people the RIAA and MPAA are.

I have zero fucking sympathy for them.

You speak of companies that own 50% or more of an artist's publishing rights -- unfair in itself, so don't expect me to defend the squeeze-screwheads at the top. I referred to the writers and the musicians from whom pirates are also stealing. It's unfair of you to slap them all into the same grouping. A man or woman writes/records a song or publishes a book deserves his/her fair share of their contracted percentage -- a share stolen by the rationalizing pirate. Again: Would you tolerate people stealing from you?

stop talking about stealing, no one is stealing. we just download music and movies from the internet and listen/watch them.

it isn't hurting anyone, if anything it is only helping them. If I like what I see / listen to I will likely go to their concert or hit up the theatre for their next movie.

if it is shit, then I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I just downloaded it off of the internet. And you need to get off you high horse and recognize that we are entering into an information age, the world is changing, deal with it.

I have no pity for those fat cat execs that have historically decided on all the movies and music we get. now artists can upload their work with out the red tape control and barrier of the industry giants. People like me can download and sample thousands of artists work and pick out material that I want to see/listen to, not the crap that someone else hasn't decided on because it going to be make alot of profits from the teen or baby boomer segments.

You're absolutely right -- it is a different and interesting time in which artists/writers can profit and thrive but simply getting their product out there, bought or stolen, if they also do concerts or have some retail outlet. However, you know full well that pirating a song or a book is stealing. It's not about conscience or ethics, it's about facts. The hallmark of ghettoization is the ability to rationalize
Shit there's someone at the door. I'm not off my high horse yet by god

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

You're absolutely right -- it is a different and interesting time in which artists/writers can profit and thrive but simply getting their product out there, bought or stolen, if they also do concerts or have some retail outlet. However, you know full well that pirating a song or a book is stealing. It's not about conscience or ethics, it's about facts. The hallmark of ghettoization is the ability to rationalize
Shit there's someone at the door. I'm not off my high horse yet by god

well if they are an artist then I believe that they are more orientated towards expressing a message to the most amount of people possible. in this case peer to peer sharing of their work would more than likely please them than aggitate them... oops there i go again getting all ghetto

also, the new model of business is to give away free products via downloading on the net in order to bring in new customers. lure them in with the free material and upsell them a more advanced product..

information sharing is here to stay, if the creator of a product is that concerned with "pirating" then the should keep their product all to them selves and never let anyone see it.

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

You're absolutely right -- it is a different and interesting time in which artists/writers can profit and thrive but simply getting their product out there, bought or stolen, if they also do concerts or have some retail outlet. However, you know full well that pirating a song or a book is stealing. It's not about conscience or ethics, it's about facts. The hallmark of ghettoization is the ability to rationalize
Shit there's someone at the door. I'm not off my high horse yet by god

A number of artists have released for pay-what-you-want albums and have been successful with them. They get their music known and heard without getting cut into by the marketing and distribution. Other bands make it worth buying the CD by bundling it with another product like a shirt or autographed picture or something. A lot of Indy bands are grateful for the ability to get their music out and heard by many many more than if they had to wait for a record co. to get them out on the airwaves....
Besides now that they charge .99 cents for digital downloads they are the ones stealing from people. They charge an average of $14 for a cd of generally 10-12 songs, so to get a physical product in hand with usually a case and little lyric booklet you pay $1.25 average....to get a jumble of binary codes you pay almost the same price? Come on they are robbing people who pay for digital copies of whole albums. The record companies claim it costs so much to put those cd's out and thats why musicians get such low royalties from them, how do they justify the bloated cost of digital copies? There is no distribution costs, no physical medium, no transportation costs.... I feel it's only right to download free copies to get justice for all those who got ripped off buying .99cent legit copies that should have only cost them like .10 cents...

Originally Posted by MyK 3.0

well if they are an artist then I believe that they are more orientated towards expressing a message to the most amount of people possible. in this case peer to peer sharing of their work would more than likely please them than aggitate them... oops there i go again getting all ghetto

also, the new model of business is to give away free products via downloading on the net in order to bring in new customers. lure them in with the free material and upsell them a more advanced product..

information sharing is here to stay, if the creator of a product is that concerned with "pirating" then the should keep their product all to them selves and never let anyone see it.

You are either naive or disingenuous. I covered the expanding-the-market-gambit-through-pirating in my previous text, then you lapse back into into "They are artists, they should be willing to give it away" which is simply another lame rationalization to comfort your lack of ethics or your inability to see a bigger picture. Presumably, you work somewhere and create a product or fill some service role and, hopefully, take pride it in. Would you donate your time, your service, your product, because you have a calling, because you produce something for it's own worth? No. Not if you have bills to pay and a family to raise -- or unless you are very wealthy, which you may be. If you have convinced yourself that stealing is okay, then at least have the balls to admit it. When you pirate a literary or musical product you are stealing. You are stealing from the mega corporations who also hammer the artists, and you are, worse, stealing from the artists themselves.

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

You are either naive or disingenuous. I covered the expanding-the-market-gambit-through-pirating in my previous text, then you lapse back into into "They are artists, they should be willing to give it away" which is simply another lame rationalization to comfort your lack of ethics or your inability to see a bigger picture. Presumably, you work somewhere and create a product or fill some service role and, hopefully, take pride it in. Would you donate your time, your service, your product, because you have a calling, because you produce something for it's own worth? No. Not if you have bills to pay and a family to raise -- or unless you are very wealthy, which you may be. If you have convinced yourself that stealing is okay, then at least have the balls to admit it. When you pirate a literary or musical product you are stealing. You are stealing from the mega corporations who also hammer the artists, and you are, worse, stealing from the artists themselves.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but please explain to me how it's stealing? Stealing entails taking something from another, thereby depriving them of it. How does that equate to copyright infringement?

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

You are either naive or disingenuous. I covered the expanding-the-market-gambit-through-pirating in my previous text, then you lapse back into into "They are artists, they should be willing to give it away" which is simply another lame rationalization to comfort your lack of ethics or your inability to see a bigger picture. Presumably, you work somewhere and create a product or fill some service role and, hopefully, take pride it in. Would you donate your time, your service, your product, because you have a calling, because you produce something for it's own worth? No. Not if you have bills to pay and a family to raise -- or unless you are very wealthy, which you may be. If you have convinced yourself that stealing is okay, then at least have the balls to admit it. When you pirate a literary or musical product you are stealing. You are stealing from the mega corporations who also hammer the artists, and you are, worse, stealing from the artists themselves.

a little projection going on I see.

and how dare you quote me AND MAKE THE QUOTE UP! if you are going to quote me, quote me. Do not put words in my mouth!

you need to see the bigger picture. the world is changing we are entering into an information age. the business model of the current companies in the entertainment industry will have to adapt if they want to stick around, and they are begining to as maniclion has pointed out.

until then the market will, and is, deciding on how they want the product delivered. do we want to pay $30 for a cd in a case from the mall, or do they want to download the product instantly to their home when they want to use it...

the market has spoken, the industry needs to adapt...

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

So . . . what about the artist who performs the song, the writer who wrote it? Presumably, you get paid for your work. You don't think they should be paid for theirs? That's what people are doing, in my opinion, when they pirate a CD or a book-on-CD: they are stealing from an individual or a group who have worked very hard to produce a product in a hugely competitive field.

They can do concerts, sell their music to movies ect.

I personally mostly download old stuff, 10+ years old. Everyone has made their money by that point and pirating is only hurting the corporations at that point so all the better.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but please explain to me how it's stealing? Stealing entails taking something from another, thereby depriving them of it. How does that equate to copyright infringement?

Is it stealing when one pirates a CD? It depends. If one intentionally circumvents a system designed to protect a piece of original music, writing or art, yes, it is stealing. A couple of other posters insist that they, and others, have the right to determine how a writer/musician distributes her/his unique, personal property (and that's what a copyrighted work is, by the way -- it is, in most cases, one human being's personal property.) This is the most common and childish way of rationalizing unethical behavior. I've read other posts from some of these writers, and they strike me as too smart to fall for this sort of prosaic bullshit if it were fronted by someone else, yet they are ready enough to shovel it themselves when challenged. It would be disappointing if this were anything other than a fun, public forum -- but's that what this is, isn't it? I don't expect to change anyone's behavior; I have done far worse things in my life than a small-time rip-off (through duplication) of another person's property, and I'm done ping-ponging this back and forth. But here's the deal: there are men and women out there working their butts off to succeed in the hugely competitive businesses of writing, music and films. Contractually, most receive a tiny (and I mean tiny!) percentage of the gross retail price of the final product -- income they have earned fairly, and depend upon to pay their bills. However they, the mass of small time thieves, justify their behavior, the behavior is still petty, unethical, and a little sad, frankly. Compromise oneself to save a few dimes? Taking another man or woman's personal property without their permission, and without just compensation, is stealing.

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

Is it stealing when one pirates a CD? It depends. If one intentionally circumvents a system designed to protect a piece of original music, writing or art, yes, it is stealing. A couple of other posters insist that they, and others, have the right to determine how a writer/musician distributes her/his unique, personal property (and that's what a copyrighted work is, by the way -- it is, in most cases, one human being's personal property.) This is the most common and childish way of rationalizing unethical behavior. I've read other posts from some of these writers, and they strike me as too smart to fall for this sort of prosaic bullshit if it were fronted by someone else, yet they are ready enough to shovel it themselves when challenged. It would be disappointing if this were anything other than a fun, public forum -- but's that what this is, isn't it? I don't expect to change anyone's behavior; I have done far worse things in my life than a small-time rip-off (through duplication) of another person's property, and I'm done ping-ponging this back and forth. But here's the deal: there are men and women out there working their butts off to succeed in the hugely competitive businesses of writing, music and films. Contractually, most receive a tiny (and I mean tiny!) percentage of the gross retail price of the final product -- income they have earned fairly, and depend upon to pay their bills. However they, the mass of small time thieves, justify their behavior, the behavior is still petty, unethical, and a little sad, frankly. Compromise oneself to save a few dimes? Taking another man or woman's personal property without their permission, and without just compensation, is stealing.

Stealing involves depriving another of property. When someone copies a book, a song, or a movie, who has been deprived? I'm not saying that pirating is legal, because it's not. It's copyright infringement and not theft; no matter how much the *IAA would like people to believe otherwise.

And FYI, I work in two fields where my work can be pirated, so it's not like I don't have a stake in this.

The people that are most hurt by the Internet and pirating are the distributors. What's funny is that the problem has little to nothing to do with pirating.

Take the RIAA, for example. They made their (exorbitant) funds by distributing music. They did that back in the day when distributing involved physical media. Now, you can distribute music without a physical medium. Actually, most people prefer it that way. So their stranglehold on distribution is evaporating, and they're trying to use copyright law, and other types of laws, to artificially maintain that stranglehold.

That was exactly what the buggy makers did when the automobile showed up. They had all sorts of asinine laws passed. One such law was to limit cars to a top speed of 10 miles an hour. That was meant to keep the speed of a horse competitive. This is the same sort of mentality that the RIAA has taken. I wasn't kidding, they wanted a 10 year prison sentence for copyright infringement. 10 fucking years in jail...for copying bits of information.

The RIAA is even to blame, in part, for the quick rise of pirating. In the late 90s and early 00s, people wanted to download songs, but the RIAA refused to allow it, so that only left the option of copyright infringement.

Of course, none of that condones breaking the law, which copyright infringement most certainly is, but it's also not stealing. No one has been deprived of anything. I just pointed out all of that as to why I don't give a jack about pirating. The RIAA is just another industry that's contracting due to the advance of technology, and they're willing to do whatever it takes, even unjust laws, to try to stop it.

Originally Posted by GeorgeForemanRules

They can do concerts, sell their music to movies ect.

This is how artist make the majority of their money. CD sales are how the RIAA makes their money.

Depriving one of money they have justly earned, taking their wholly owned product without permission isn't stealing? We're just gonna have to disagree on that one. Anyway, I discovered this webpage while researching HRT, and I've learned a lot -- including the surprising fact that bodybuilders are among the world's funniest, most twisted folk. Thanks for the debate, now let's get back to workouts and chemical enhancement.

Originally Posted by 2tomlinson

Depriving one of money they have justly earned

One last thing, you're saying that because someone downloaded a song, movie or book, that they would have paid for it otherwise? That's the crap that the RIAA pushes and how they come up with the "we lost a bajillion dollars because of pirating" spiel. Oh, and Wolverine was leaked before it came out in the theaters, and still made a crap-load of money.

Sorry, I'm so mesmerized by your swollen, swinging hooters I am unable to reply at this time.

I've had that avatar for so long, I'd forgotten about it's mesmerizing capabilities.