You are, all you're saying they are nothing alike. But they are.
Neither hurts anyone, except in loss profits. That is the similarity and why it is a useful analogy.
BT ordered to block pirate links
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
You are, all you're saying they are nothing alike. But they are.
Neither hurts anyone, except in loss profits. That is the similarity and why it is a useful analogy.
You can make things less attractive by legislation. It's true that you'll never eliminate undesirable activities via legislation, but that has never been the aim. The aim, instead, has been to make it less attractive to the average person, as well as providing some measure of protection and opportunity for rehabilitation for those caught doing it.
Seriously, stop it. BAD analogy. Piracy isn't a crime, murder is. With murder you're depriving some one of the right to life, with piracy you're not depriving anyone from anything. You're confusing undesirable with wrong and criminal.
Where did I say it's a crime. Read what I'm saying.
I didn't even compare murder to piracy. Again are you even reading it.
And yes piracy is loss earnings, so it's not all sweet and innocent and harms no one like you suggest.
Put it this way if 100% of people breached copyright, what do you think would happen to these companies and all the. Jobs and artists? As in your mind it's harmless, then these people will be happy and carry on thriving and making money.
It is a perfect analogy. You clearly have no idea about how much money goes in to producing music/movies etc. Illegally downloading is no different (in terms of loss for the creator) than stealing a CD from a shop.
You seem obsessed with the big corporations making money which they need to do to satisfy their shareholders otherwise the whole model doesn't work.
What about the independent record labels etc that can't make any money because naive people think that downloading for free doesn't harm anyone?
You are depriving someone from the right to earn from their intellectual property.
Looks like I say far more than that in my post...
Really, a lot of padding that doesn't actually cover any facts and Dolph has already covered the earnings.
Increased earnings does not mean no. Loss of jobs, revenue or tax.
You know are economy is based on growth, well piracy = far less. Growth. So stop. Saying it's harmless.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
If a train is running from Liverpool to London and you get aboard it without a ticket, are you hurting anyone?
Should you be allowed to do this?
If everyone did it, why on earth would a train operator bother to run trains?
If everyone had your selfish attitude to intellectual property rights why on earth would anyone bother to make music or films?
You do indeed keep saying this.
Do you have any basis for doing so?
Do you know many people in the entertainment industry?
Are they all egotistical control freaks, unconcerned about their incomes?
Of course it's different to stealing from a shop, otherwise not buying the CD is also the same as piracy and stealing from the shop because they earn nothing from any of them. As I said earlier on, should we all be forced in to buying all music, movie and game releases to ensure the relevant people earn a minimum amount?
It is completely wrong to assume a download equates to a lost sale, it doesn't at all, there's nothing to say that someone who downloads would always buy if they didn't have the chance to download. Downloading simply means they want said item, not that they're prepared to purchase it.
I'm not obsessed with them making money, I'm just pointing out that they regularly post record earnings, which means they're clearly making a lot of money, which surely is satisfying share holders if they're constantly making more? Pointing this out doesn't indicate an obsession.
I am also very aware of how much money goes in to the production of movies games and music, in the case of movies they're nearly always well in to profit just from the cinema release anyway, or are you conveniently ignoring that?
As for the independent record labels, they don't have a divine right to earn money as a record label, and it's becoming truer all the time that record labels aren't as necessary as they once were, what if all of a record label's artists went independent and the record label wasn't able to earn any money from it? Is that the same as stealing too?
It's not about naive people "stealing" from these record labels, they wouldn't be operating if they weren't making any money. As some one else pointed out, piracy has been a fact of life for these type of industries for a very long time, people are well aware of it all getting in to it.
No, it really isn't. If you don't buy the CD, you don't have access to the content. If you download it or shoplift it, you have access to the content, without the content owner's permission.
And whether they want it or not is irrelevant. It belongs to someone else. Does rape just mean they want to have sex with someone, but aren't prepared to seek consent first?
So because they are doing ok, they forfeit the right to control their own property?
It really is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will go through to try and make out that their total disregard for the rights of anyone else is somehow acceptable...
No you're not. You're firstly assuming that they would buy if they couldn't pirate, and secondly if you pirate something, you're not removing the right of the person to sell to other people, like you're implying.
Again, completely based on the assumption of a download equals a lost sale. You are completely assuming wrongly that if people couldn't download, they'd rush out to buy the things they'd otherwise pirate. It might be the case, but can't categorically state that without piracy the economy would grow. It's quite ridiculous that you're even suggesting that.
If just one person pirates instead of buying, then the argument holds.
Sercondly, you are removing the right of the person to control their intellectual property, especially if you then proceed to share it further...
For the umpteenth time, it doesn't have to be one to one, simply proving that a single individual who would have bought downloaded instead is enough.
Can you prove, with clearly referenced, independent research, that this is never the case?
Okay, so borrowing from a friend is also the same as piracy and stealing because you're getting access to the content for free.
Are you purposefully missing my point? I said someone downloading something simply indicates to the fact that they want it, not whether they'd pay for it if they couldn't pirate it. How did you misunderstand that so badly to bring rape in to it?
Again changing my point. That was in response to AcidHell saying that piracy is costing people jobs. Do I really have to exlpain it to you in bite size amounts? Could you really not deduce what that was in response to?
Oh yeah, total disregards to the rights of anyone is exactly the same as piracy.
I am really against draconian measures such as this, if media could compete with piracy, I am talking about unlimited access or micro payments then piracy would drop. Piracy is not free these days, yes you can use p2p for free but these are slow on public sites and private sites will cost as you will have buy an invitation. Usenet access is about £10, media companies really do need to come down to more modern systems instead of ancient models.
Depends if by borrowing it you are creating the opportunity for duplication of the licensed content or not.
I'm not missing your point, I'm not accepting your point because it flies in the face of centuries of law regarding property rights. Why do you think someone has the right to something just because they want it? Why do you think so little of the property rights of individuals that you will happily discard them purely because someone else wants something?
Not changing the point at all, just again refusing to accept the assumption you start from (and hence load the question with) that it is acceptable to take someone else's property if you want it but aren't willing to pay for it.
Yes, it pretty much is. Just because you choose to disregard the property rights of inviduals before you start making your arguments doesn't make it an accepted proposition.
Let's start by clearing it up. Are the wants of one person more important than the property rights of another? If so, why? If you can establish this premise, then the rest of your argument will start to come together better. Currently, you are arguing as if this assumption is fact accepted by all parties, and yet you have made no case as to why that should be so.
This, really. If media companies provided a competitive model (like a payment of £x and you get unlimited access to films/music/etc for however long, AND the ability to keep the files after your subscription ends) then they'd do a lot of damage to piracy.