Poll: Thoughts on internet piracy?

[spoffle]

I don't think piracy is ok and I detest freeloaders - however I equally detest companies that haven't caught up and embraced the digital age, etc. and have no sympathy for them when they drag their feet or are locked in backwards mentalities but then whine about piracy especially when their content is delayed stupid lengths of time or released at extreme prices, etc.

EDIT: IMO 2/3rds of people who pirate content are consumers that the companies failed to reach and only have themselves to blame, only about 1/3rd would never pay anyway.

Opinions don't really matter here, as you are effectively stating that 100% of people who pirate either have been failed by the content providers, or don't pay for any media at all regardless.

Figures go against this completely, and in fact support the argument that the more people are exposed to media, the more they will buy.

Your comment of freeloading shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation too, or you're making it black and white for no real good reason. There is literally no point in trying to get involved in this sort of discussion if you are going to try and simplify it in such basic terms.

Your first comment shows that your two suggestions are also extremely at odds with each other, as you can't genuinely detest "freeloaders" (that you haven't properly quantified) and companies who haven't caught up.

 

[spoffle]

Are people in favour of a payment to copyright holders like what occurs in some European countries? The fee means that copyright holders are compensated for piracy and so it's not "okay" as such but I guess a blind-eye is turned.

In a practical sense, that does nothing but legitimise it really, the same way as how they get a percentage of money from the sale of blank media.

They can't actually prove a loss in any practical manner outside of trying to shove projections in people's faces of "this is how much we say it was downloaded, therefore we have lost this amount of money".

They always increase the figures, they will also of course only use the most expensive price they can, too. On top of that, lending and watching stuff around your friends' place or with family, or even buying second hand has the same net effect if that's the way they are trying to quantify a "loss" (note, I don't believe those examples are losses, I'm simply stating that if you use their logic consistent then any lack of sales in any form are a loss).

So in effect, they are being paid money for "losses" that didn't actually happen for content they believe people would have bought had they not "pirated" it. Which means that they receiving money for goods that they have never supplied, and then moaning that people are using their products without having paid.

This demonstrates the actual issue is one of greed and control, otherwise if they were so principled about piracy, they wouldn't be taking money for goods they haven't and won't supply. It's not like you see them giving away content to the value of the fees they receive in some countries.

 

[Stretch]

Black and white question for a grey argument.

Copyright laws are out of date.

Does it justify stealing? No. Does it justify a change in the law? Yes.

I voted it depends.

This.

 

[spoffle]

I voted that piracy is not ok. Piracy is piracy, you're stealing something even if it's just digital.
I will be honest though, doesn't stop me from doing it. It's an almost uncatchable crime. I do try and buy the things I really like and appreciate though, as then it's worth my money. Sort of a try-before-you-buy type deal.

I'm a walking contradiction, I know...

As I've said before, words and their meanings are very important. Especially with regards to such subjects. It isn't actually stealing, and it isn't actually a crime. Both of those statements are factual and in no way emotionally charged, or an attempt to "justify" as some people who don't understand the importance of the meanings of words would like you to believe.

What doesn't help though is that the companies who are against piracy try their best to make people believe that it is theft, and it is a crime to do so. That helps no one at all.

 

[spoffle]

Some of my work is out there for free, thanks to piracy. It is uncool and it does hurt the little guys like me, no matter what excuses people might come up with.

To discuss and establish the realities of the situation by pointing out inaccuracies in arguments is not the same thing as making an excuse.

For example, can you demonstrate a loss, and if you think you can what is that based on?

Can you demonstrate that situations where people have purchased your content have been due to "official" advertising, and not the possibility that your "little guy" content has been discovered by someone through piracy that would have otherwise missed it?

These aren't excuses, these are questions that should be asked and discussed if you want to make the sort of statements you have made. Unfortunately, any attempts to talk about these sort of things properly using the correct definitions of words without the emotionally charged aspect, doesn't tend to happen. People just get upset and read or listen with their feelings, not their brains and results in them not actually hearing or taking in what has actually been said, but instead hearing or reading "it's okay because".

 

[spoffle]

People are right that its not legally theft, but the concept of theft was never intended to deal with data (or *gulp* broadly equivalent 'non-chattels'). Still, contrary to popular belief, distributing such content without making a profit is not only unlawful but criminally illegal (although saying that, it is a question of fact as to whether the accused actions have actually prejudiced the copyright owner).

Theft is a legal construct, whether it was intended to deal with data or not is irrelevant, especially since it doesn't apply to ideas either, which are a form of data. Obviously there needs to be more context around the talk about ideas, but in general there are other legal constructs that deal with the taking and using of ideas that you haven't come up with yourself in regards to commercialising them. To actually take and use an idea for yourself for personal entertainment (as is typically the case with copyright infringement) isn't something that is dealt with with regards to the law.

So if you want to discuss criminality, legality and so on, you really can't be saying things that suggest that piracy isn't "technically" theft, because it simply isn't theft.

Now, distribution of content you don't have the legal right to distribute is illegal AND a criminal matter depending on the circumstances (which is usually related to the scale of the unlawful re-distribution) .

As far as I'm concerned, it is morally irresponsible. The argument that no loss is incurred is a total farce as by downloading unlawfully, you circumvent a gain that is otherwise rightfully accrued. To say that you wouldn't have paid for that content is niether here nor there. You didn't have a right to do it nor was it the copyright owner's choice to permit you to do it.

Morals don't really come in to such a commercial process as this. As you can also argue that large media companies create content with the intent of having people desire it, and that the sole purpose of what they're doing is to get people interested in what they are putting out.

That isn't to suggest that the fact that they create a desirable product means people can and should consume it in any way they wish, it does however pull control away from the content producers in such a way that it becomes "the people's". As without the people to desire their content, they'd be nowhere anyway. It is however a very complex argument and situation that you can't sum up in such a basic manner in which you have.

 

[spoffle]

What makes your post-hoc veneer of acceptability reasonable? Why can't he reserve the right to distribute his intellectual property how he sees fit, even if it being on a torrent site has led to a sale?

Can you point out the part where I said this?

Why can't he reserve the right to not have people accessing his intellectual property for free, even if they wouldn't pay for access if that was their only option?

Can you also point out where I said this too?

If he wants to go down the path of getting exposure from releasing it on torrent sites and so forth, he can do that... but why can't it be his choice, rather than a second person doing it without his permission?

With this third statement, you have done exactly what I said people do when this sort of stuff has been discussed. You haven't responded to a single point I have made. You have instead made up your own points and attempted to argue against them as if I have said them.

I haven't. My comments were contingent on specifically what was said. I am talking about the claims that "hurt" has happened. Something you can not legitimately claim unless you actually know the implications it has had because he doesn't know IF they have hurt him in a commercial sense. He doesn't know whether his sales are as a result of more people finding out about his content through illicit channels. In which case, them not being on torrent sites would actually have "hurt" the "little guy".

Outside of that, ultimately you have to be pretty naive to want to produce content that is successful and desirable to customers that doesn't get pirated to some degree, it's a matter of fact that this is what happens and anyone who wants to create content, and does should understand that this is what will happen. I can't help but feel that if your aim is solely financial then you might be in it for the wrong reasons, as people sharing, say if it's music, physically by lending their friends the CD that they like and have consumed but not necessarily bought, has the same net result anyway.

 

[spoffle]

I think infringing the property rights of others, without their permission, is wrong. It's laughable when people justify it by claiming they're forced to by outdated distribution of TV/films/music/whatever - they're not withholding something which is part of your human rights. Then there's stuff like people claiming they want to see/play/hear something and not risk wasting money if it turns out to be rubbish... but again, the producer of that content isn't forcing you to buy... you can abstain if you want... you can wait for proper reviews if you want... etc. It's also hilarious when websites get shut down which basically exist just to facilitate copyright infringement, and that's said to be a terrible infringement of our rights .

You don't seem able to argue this topic very well. The issue when sites are shut down is that laws are being bent to by the government or authorities to accommodate and support the financial interests of private companies.

This is why they now block sites via ISPs instead of shutting the sites down, because the way the law is set up at the moment the sites that "provide" the content aren't actually in breach of laws. They don't host the content, they don't "supply" it technically, they simply index information on how it's accessed.

This is the actual issue that has been complained about when sites are shut down.

That aside, you seem to be very much in favour of the companies, as it stands it's very much one sided. If you buy media and it is utter crap, you are typically expected to just accept it and take the hit. You can of course in future choose to avoid said company's products. However that doesn't solve the situation of them having provided a crap product, which some companies are getting away with simply because they know little to nothing will be done.

This is also ignoring the part about where some of the loudest companies who are anti "piracy" are guilty of it themselves anyway, usually to an actual detrimental extent, where an actual loss can be demonstrated.

The worst part is how people casually infringe copyright loads, justifying it however they see fit... then they cry hard when measures are put in place to curtail their freedoms. Try not infringing copyright, so they have no excuse?

This isn't the worst part. If everyone decided piracy was okay and did it, you do understand that on a societal level it then becomes "fine" right? This is generally how "good" and "bad" on a societal level is reached. Most things you think of as good or bad are because of how society has responded to said things.

Ignoring that bit, casual piracy is "rife" simply because of how easy it is. There will be things you have watched on YouTube, that for example are considered piracy or an infringement of some company's copyright, this is the main factor as to why it's so easy and casually done.

You unfortunately don't seem to have much of a grasp of this situation at all.

 

[dowie]

So with Breaking Bad it was still good, in your opinion.

It was/is OK, didn't live up to the hype IMO. I've only watched 2 seasons, haven't watched another episode since Christmas...

Then with your Heroes example, you didn't have to be an early adopter buying the boxset before finding out what it was like...

I wasn't - the boxed sets tend to come after it has been shown, I hadn't seen it when it was shown on TV - I could have streamed it to see if I'd like it, I actually borrowed series 1 from a friend in the end

 

[spoffle]

I have voted on the poll.

I think it depends, but I don't agree with people stealing everything, and never giving developers any support, it is taking away their living.

I'm sure it applies to everything else software based too.

I really find it strange that people seemingly feel some NEED to constantly refer to piracy as theft or stealing. What is wrong with calling it piracy or copyright infringement?

On a subconscious level, do you feel that piracy, or copyright infringement aren't emotionally charged enough to describe what is happening?

If a customer doesn't like it, they're not obliged to pay... if the company is being so unreasonable no one'll buy their product, that's their bad. It's a game/film, not basic sustenance. If you can't get a very good idea of what you're paying for using forums/pro reviews/amateur reviews/game play videos/trailers/whatever, you're an idiot.

This stance is wholly in favour of the companies though, which is a strange one to have. As in the short term the only parties that are at a disadvantage are the end user consumers.

At some point, the company's sales might drop and even cease, but it still doesn't address the actual issue. Why do you think demos are so rare now? A lot of these companies know exactly what they're doing.

It seems as if you're suggesting people shouldn't be that bothered about money they lost out in, that they have spent an amount of finite time of their life earning, because it isn't all that much, just because they then have the option of not buying anything else, but it's fine that they can't deal with the situation of having bought content that is crap.

 

[ethan]

The worst part is how people casually infringe copyright loads, justifying it however they see fit... then they cry hard when measures are put in place to curtail their freedoms. Try not infringing copyright, so they have no excuse

I'd like to own the things I purchase, thank you very much. I would also like to resell what I own but fat chance of that too (if we are talking about PC games) . I also make backups of the blu ray movies I have purchased and still keep the backups when I have sold the originals (simply because of the fact they were legitimately purchased which doesn't disappear after they have been resold). I 'll sometimes download a movie and if I enjoyed watching it I will also go and see it at an Imax and then later go out and buy it and so I see myself as supporting and paying in more to the "industry" than just taking from it.

 

[spoffle]

I'd like to own the things I purchase, thank you very much. I would also like to resell what I own but fat chance of that too (if we are talking about PC games) . I also make backups of the blu ray movies I have purchased and still keep the backups when I have sold the originals (simply because of the fact they were legitimately purchased which doesn't disappear after they have been resold). I 'll sometimes download a movie and if I enjoyed watching it I will also go and see it at an Imax and then later go out and buy it and so I see myself as supporting and paying in more to the "industry" than just taking from it.

I don't actually care that you retain the back ups of blurays that you've bought, but I'd like to point out that the fact that you originally purchased it is irrelevant, as the disk itself is considered the "license" to consume the intangible data that is on the disk. When you sell it, you are passing on the license to consume the intangible data. So it doesn't disappear, it does however move on from yourself. So you are actually infringing on copyright by retaining the copies.

But as I said, I don't actually care, I just see it as no different to the people claiming that piracy is theft and criminal.

 

[ethan]

I don't actually care that you retain the back ups of blurays that you've bought, but I'd like to point out that the fact that you originally purchased it is irrelevant, as the disk itself is considered the "license" to consume the intangible data that is on the disk. When you sell it, you are passing on the license to consume the intangible data. So it doesn't disappear, it does however move on from yourself. So you are actually infringing on copyright by retaining the copies.

But as I said, I don't actually care, I just see it as no different to the people claiming that piracy is theft and criminal.

Well, this is it, isn't it? Most people would feel it is the fee that is the provider of entitlement, enabling them to do whatever they liked with the medium, not some corporate bod trying to argue the same thing, but with the placing of restrictions.

 

[Orionaut]

For my own part, I consider multinational media corps fair game as long as the iniquity of "regional coding" persists.

Scrap "regional coding" and I will become much more sympathertic.

 

[Mason-]

If you had asked me 8-10 years ago I might have said It Depends. Now I'm older and someone who will be a software engineer it's definitely not okay. With services like Netflix and Spotify as well as the alternatives why shouldn't you pay for your media. Most games have demos too. So the excuse "I want to try a game and then I'll buy it" doesn't wash with me.

However one thing that I really do hate is the whole Blu-Ray thing, I've bought a blu-ray player for my PC and it is a nightmare it's not simple to use at all and it's all to do with licensing. Really annoying. That's the only media platform that for me is really lacking.

 

[rids57]

Interesting article on Torrent Freak that shows what happens when media becomes easily available legally...

Norwegian music piracy figures show that between 2009 and 2014 the percentage of Norwegians under 30 that download music illegally has dropped from 70% to just 4%.

The revenues of the music companies haven't seen any increase though, in fact when you take inflation into account they have actually gone down.

This whole turn around is literally all due to the legal streaming mediums like Spotify.

Full article here...

http://torrentfreak.com/unprecedented-music-piracy-collapse-fails-to-boost-revenues-150126/

 

[Boycey0211]

In 2001 I went on a school trip to belgium with £10 pocket money.

On that trip I bought a copy of half life 1 for the £10 because the cheapest I had seen it in the UK was £15, if I was that age today I would have just pirated it instead.

Not to justify it but I think thats where a fair bit of it comes from, look at the disparacy between media prices across countries, a game here might be £39.99 but in russia is £10.99 so I can understand consumers giving the middle finger and downloading for free.

I know its income differences that lead to this but still makes my blood boil when I see others getting products cheaper just by location and I assume the same applies for music and films.

 

[Tombo]

Most games have demos too.

 

[spoffle]

That really was quite the interesting definition of most, wasn't it?

 

[Kronos]

As many have pointed out so many companies/industries failed to embrace the new digital age with tge music and film industry being the worst offenders. But rather than admit that they instead resorted to silly threats to punish by fining everybody instead of channeling their energies into offering a service people wanted and would pay for. Of course you will always get those that will never pay but the majority of us I feel would.