Online piracy cost 39000 jobs...

I think we all know by now that pirating a game or music or a film is not technically stealing. But honestly who cares? It is still morally wrong and it is something you can be fined heavily for.

It is also true that media companies probably aren't losing nearly as much money as they would like us all to believe, but given just how many people do pirate, there will be some lost revenue.

Before the Internet people would save up money for a long time to get what they couldn't afford. I find it highly unlikely that every single pirate in the world would stop buying things if suddenly they couldn't pirate anymore. Many are just opting for the easier/quickest option. If that option weren't there however...

Any justification along the lines of "oh I could just record the radio or use Spotify or blah blah blah" is utter tripe. In the case of music, artists get paid hefty royalties when radio stations play their music. When you download it off someone on the Internet no royalties have been paid.
 
You see, how far can the state go in laws to protect the profits of the BIG MEDIA is the question that we should be asking. There has been many cases over the years of successful busts, the FBI did a big one in 2005. The Brein and the RIAA and the MPAA and the Canadian Aaaaa...have all seen substantial take downs, in referring to combating the terrorism that is intellectual property piracy.

The point is that these laws are not going to help them, if you know the way the internet works. All they will do is give the state more power on the internet to abuse.
 
Robbie G said:
Legally, no. Practically and logically, yes.
Click to expand...

Not really, practically and logically it's counterfeiting.


People always think they're very clever saying "well legally it's not stealing", whilst forgetting that the legal definition isn't the only one that matters.
Click to expand...

When it's the difference between a civil and criminal offence yes it is.
 
Delvis said:
No they don't, because if the option of downloading / pirating wasn't there, they wouldn't have downloaded it in the first place.
Click to expand...


Well they do because they know if they would have bought MW2 or just dl'd it for the single player.
 
Strife212 said:
Yes but they woudn't, if you could copy infinite apples why the **** would you buy one?
Click to expand...


Because the store apple has certain features the copy doesn;t just like any counterfeit goods pirate copies aren't usually as good as the real thing.


If you could copy say a fruit salad, and could only eat the aple part but not the orange and pine apple part, you may not buy them if you only like apples but if you really like pineaple and orange you have to buy it.


That and believe it or not pirates actually buy games they like to support the devs and download the crap thats worth a punt for a hours laugh but not something they'd play if it cost them anything.



Remember every study done (mostlky on music) has shown that on average pirates buy more of the product they pirate than non pirates.



Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
Click to expand...


Also a lot of pirates use it as a try before you buy.


I pirated the first stalker game because i thought it looked ok but would probably be crap, really liked it and have since pre ordered collectors editions of each of the stalker squeals along with the first.


If there was no option to pirate I wouldn't have bought any of them.
 
Last edited:
Delvis said:
Well yes, they're going to :p

That's like saying all the people who have stolen certain cars, if they didn't steal them, would have brought them anyway!

It is indeed stupid logic, but hey...they're going to use it
Click to expand...

BOUGHT! NOT BROUGHT!

BAD BAD! WRONG! :mad:
 
SiriusB said:
I think we all know by now that pirating a game or music or a film is not technically stealing. But honestly who cares? It is still morally wrong and it is something you can be fined heavily for.

It is also true that media companies probably aren't losing nearly as much money as they would like us all to believe, but given just how many people do pirate, there will be some lost revenue.

Before the Internet people would save up money for a long time to get what they couldn't afford. I find it highly unlikely that every single pirate in the world would stop buying things if suddenly they couldn't pirate anymore. Many are just opting for the easier/quickest option. If that option weren't there however...

Any justification along the lines of "oh I could just record the radio or use Spotify or blah blah blah" is utter tripe. In the case of music, artists get paid hefty royalties when radio stations play their music. When you download it off someone on the Internet no royalties have been paid.
Click to expand...

The people who want it to be called theft appear to be the ones with a problem.

They try and insult people, call them "thieves" and so on as they want 'piracy' to look and sound as bad as possible.

Theft has its own definition as well as piracy, those that argue that piracy is theft are the ones initiating the "debate" in the first place.

By their logic, assault and attempted murder are the same thing.

Now anyone claiming that they ARE the same thing is obviously trying to make it seem as bad as possible.

There's nothing that can be really done about piracy in its downloading form (ie, downloading for personal use, not uploading and or selling).
 
D D Danneh said:
That's not the definition of stealing. The definition of stealing is to take something without consent. Fair enough, you are obtaining something without consent, but you aren't "taking it away" from anyone else. It doesn't COST anyone anything. If you were to go into a store and steal a CD, it WOULD cost the manufacturer money because they've spent that money on producing the CD, and it has been lost because you didn't pay for it.
Click to expand...

Whilst copyright infringement may not be exactly the same as stealing in the true definition of the word, there is certainly an overlap to a certain extent, in my opinion. You are gaining something which you have no real right to, similar to taking a candy bar out of a shop, for example. Now, please be aware I am not making a direct comparison to stealing but simply highlighting you have no real right to either the candy bar nor what you have downloaded because you haven't paid for either products.

Also, the fact that there is so much debate regarding this surely indicates it isn't quite as clear cut as saying weather or not copyright infringement is stealing or it isn't. Would you agree there is some middle ground?

For those that download say for example a particular film, if they had no intention of purchasing that film in the first place, then it isn't really a lost sale. However, using the excuse off; since I had no intention of purchasing the film in the first place, downloading it instead isn't going to cause anyone any loss, it's a real cop out excuse, in my opinion.

Regarding the price debates, it's a difficult one because everyone has different opinions on what they would consider a reasonable price for a particular product. In my mind, if a product is selling for a price which in my view is too high than what it should be or I can't afford it, I will simply do without it.

I'm interested in hearing from those that may download software, films, music, despite the fact you do it, in your mind, do you truly believe you are perfectly entitled to those things you have downloaded and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are doing?
 
Tefal said:
Because the store apple has certain features the copy doesn;t just like any counterfeit goods pirate copies aren't usually as good as the real thing.


If you could copy say a fruit salad, and could only eat the aple part but not the orange and pine apple part, you may not buy them if you only like apples but if you really like pineaple and orange you have to buy it.


That and believe it or not pirates actually buy games they like to support the devs and download the crap thats worth a punt for a hours laugh but not something they'd play if it cost them anything.



Remember every study done (mostlky on music) has shown that on average pirates buy more of the product they pirate than non pirates.








Also a lot of pirates use it as a try before you buy.


I pirated the first stalker game because i thought it looked ok but would probably be crap, really liked it and have since pre ordered collectors editions of each of the stalker squeals along with the first.


If there was no option to pirate I wouldn't have bought any of them.
Click to expand...

You generally find that with games, the pirates actually end up with a better product.

No DRM, play without the disc, none of the issues associated with DRM (install limits and so on).

For movies, say BD rips, I think 95% of the population would be able to distinguish between a genuine BD movie and a BD rip, BD rips are very high quality as I'm sure you probably know.

As for music, same applies, same quality as you'll get on iTunes store or whichever download store you use.

Piracy used to indicate some sort of compromise, lower price but it's lower quality (when pirated tapes were common), now you're getting an arguably identical product for free.

In terms of piracy, I believe the emphasis should be on the content providers to demonstrate why we should buy their products, look at steam, they're doing very very well.

I do and have pirated a lot of things, I generally go out and buy it if I like it however, which is why I have 130 odd games on steam alone, 100+ PC games on my shelf, 30 odd PS3 games, 70 Blu-rays, 20 Wii games and 100 odd other things comprised of DVDs, PS2/Xbox/GC/PSP/DS games.

Ultimately, it's my money, regardless of what other people would have you believe, I DO have a choice when it comes to buying or downloading (the law doesn't dictate what choice you have, but rather what choices are wrong) and I often make use of said choice.
 
Fire Wizard said:
Whilst copyright infringement may not be exactly the same as stealing in the true definition of the word, there is certainly an overlap to a certain extent, in my opinion. You are gaining something which you have no real right to, similar to taking a candy bar out of a shop, for example. Now, please be aware I am not making a direct comparison to stealing but simply highlighting you have no real right to either the candy bar nor what you have downloaded because you haven't paid for either products.

Also, the fact that there is so much debate regarding this surely indicates it isn't quite as clear cut as saying weather or not copyright infringement is stealing or it isn't. Would you agree there is some middle ground?

For those that download say for example a particular film, if they had no intention of purchasing that film in the first place, then it isn't really a lost sale. However, using the excuse off; since I had no intention of purchasing the film in the first place, downloading it instead isn't going to cause anyone any loss, it's a real cop out excuse, in my opinion.

Regarding the price debates, it's a difficult one because everyone has different opinions on what they would consider a reasonable price for a particular product. In my mind, if a product is selling for a price which in my view is too high than what it should be or I can't afford it, I will simply do without it.

I'm interested in hearing from those that may download software, films, music, despite the fact you do it, in your mind, do you truly believe you are perfectly entitled to those things you have downloaded and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you are doing?
Click to expand...

I find people talk about entitlement far far too much when it comes to piracy.

I doubt many people downloading stuff from the net even think about entitlement at all, but rather "I can do that? Oh cool".

People usually try to go to deep with things as entitlement when it's far more simple.

If a game comes out and I'm not sure about it, I'll download it to see if I like it, if I do I generally go and buy it.

The truth is that now, people have a choice as to whether they pay for something, or download it.

It may not be what you deem right or moral, but that choice is still there for people to make.

If enough people decided that's how they wanted it to be, the laws would have to follow that as there is no way they could keep up with people.

For example, if every road user in the country decided to have a speeding day, where they all went over the speed limit, the country couldn't cope with the burden of issuing tickets to everyone, they'd have to ignore the fact that it had happened and try to offer an incentive as to why people shouldn't speed.
 
mattyfez said:
Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe $60 billion in damages.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-labels.html
Click to expand...

Now see, according to that, it shows the record labels simply don't care about copyright infringement outside of "hang on, we could get more money by threatening to sue people".

That completely throws morals out the window, if the record companies do it then they've got absolutely no grounds to complain.

In fact, what's going on there is actually far worse than some one downloading something for their own personal usage, they're actually profiting from some one else's work.
 
kylew said:
No you aren't writing an essay, but at least you now know it's bought not brought.

It's the same as thinking "House" is actually "Mouse".
Click to expand...

It's called a spelling mistake, I don't proof read every post I make :)

They're two completely different words man! :p
 
For all those who say the media companies are losing out big time, just take a look at the likes of steam and itunes, they seem to be doing very well for themselves at the moment. As times have moved on so have trading practices.

In my eyes it should be up to the record labels and film studios to move with the times. They seem to be doing nothing yet complaining that profits are down. It is not 1997 anymore as said before!

Adapt or miss out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom