Poll: Piracy and you?

[Gunni Parker]

I have honestly never done it, i am too scared about bad things getting on my comp!!!

 

[Kenai]

Is 4 passes enough?

Not usually, at least 25 samples would be considered minimum generally IIRC. The more the better though.

(also wasn't the point of the test to compare to 320k MP3, using a 248k V0 is a different test entirely?)

 

[Eddie182]

I do very occasionally (a couple of time a year at most) download TV series and the odd album via torrent, but if I do like said material I'll always purchase it later on down the line and delete the downloaded copies

 

[Bloomfield]

I Pirate a lot of TV Shows, partly because they're shown in America first and partly because when they are shown over here i can't stand the adverts.

Films, Wii Games, and PC Games i pirate quite a lot, altho I've started buying a lot of games from Steam as i can't stand having to put discs in, i used to own about 300 DVDs most of which i've lost now (moved a lot of times, lent out etc, still have a lot of empty cases tho ), so downloading them is the easiest way for me.

I have a quite a lot of pirated xbox360 games too.

I don't really listen to music, so don't have any legit or pirated music.

 

[Trifid]

Not usually, at least 25 samples would be considered minimum generally IIRC. The more the better though.

(also wasn't the point of the test to compare to 320k MP3, using a 248k V0 is a different test entirely?)

Worked out how to do 320 in foobar. V0 is the choice of MP3 format looking at download stats on a site.

Anyway got to 8 with 2 wrong and got bored... Might try again tomorrow.

 

[Hellsmk2]

My mate "Dave" happily downloads all of his music illegally, but probably spends a good grand or two per year on supporting artists via means of purchasing vinyls, t-shirts, club/gig tickets, etc.

My mate "Dave" wants to give the middle finger to all the self righteous bunch who think the £50 they legally spent on music to "support the artist" (bwuahahaha) is worth more and makes them a better person.

 

[Schizo]

to be honest i did download everything 5 years ago.

i had a huge collection of music,film's and game's.

but now i dont download anything at all now.

i feel so much better with my steam folder full of game i purchased with my hard earned money.

but i can see why people do it nowdays with so many people out of work and with low wages who want all the latest film's ect.

 

[bigredshark]

My mate "Dave" happily downloads all of his music illegally, but probably spends a good grand or two per year on supporting artists via means of purchasing vinyls, t-shirts, club/gig tickets, etc.

My mate "Dave" wants to give the middle finger to all the self righteous bunch who think the £50 they legally spent on music to "support the artist" (bwuahahaha) is worth more and makes them a better person.

The first is a fair point, the second, well, I see where you're coming from but maybe it does make them a better person for not breaking the law to obtain something because they didn't want to pay for it.

But I do agree, in a just world musicians would earn a living from performances and merchandise, it's more the record companies who prevent that today. Then again, my distaste for people who download music illegally isn't about supporting the artists, it's about the view that it's OK to download illegally for some unspecified reason which usually comes down to being cheap.

 

[bigredshark]

but i can see why people do it nowdays with so many people out of work and with low wages who want all the latest film's ect.

That's exactly why people do it. Same reason there's so much consumer debt, people want stuff but either can't afford it or don't want to pay so find another way.

I'm really not defending record companies (they're close to indefensible) but obtaining music illegally isn't a rational response to that and it certainly isn't in any way morally justifiable.

 

[Antar Bolaeisk]

I do it very, very rarely. Generally only with prohibitively expensive software. I've always bought my games and about 99% of my music collection though.

 

[Glaucus]

My mate "Dave" wants to give the middle finger to all the self righteous bunch who think the £50 they legally spent on music to "support the artist" (bwuahahaha) is worth more and makes them a better person.

:confused; are you trying to say people who buy music don't go to 10's of gigs a year and buy merchandise. Please don't try and defend it. Do it if you want but don't try and defend.

 

[bigredshark]

Well I can't afford to pay for music, pure and simple, if it wasn't so damn expensive I would. But record companies are *********, as you pointed out.

Indeed, and you're not so much the problem tbh, students haven't been paying for music for a long time. There were people recording tracks off the radio and sharing them round a few decades ago. It's just technology makes it more accessible today.

I think there is an element of 'can't afford it, then do without' (particularly when you've got 600GB of music!) but it's actually the widespread piracy of music across a big demographic group that's new and a problem. That and the fact that years ago people tended to start buying music legally again when they could afford it, that doesn't happen now.

 

[bigredshark]

I do it very, very rarely. Generally only with prohibitively expensive software. I've always bought my games and about 99% of my music collection though.

Software doesn't much matter so people, not the expensive stuff anyway. Adobe don't pursue people who pirate photoshop too aggressively because they know lots of them wouldn't buy it at £500 or whatever if they couldn't get it free so there's no lost sale. And businesses won't risk having pirated software.

 

[Hellsmk2]

:confused; are you trying to say people who buy music don't go to 10's of gigs a year and buy merchandise. Please don't try and defend it. Do it if you want but don't try and defend.

Defend what? It's already been established that those who illegally download music often spend much more on music than your average legal downloader.

I personally couldn't give a toss if the "industry" has spat its dummy out over the past few years. It's an archaic system that I'll be glad to see die.

 

[Kenai]

Software doesn't much matter so people, not the expensive stuff anyway. Adobe don't pursue people who pirate photoshop too aggressively because they know lots of them wouldn't buy it at £500 or whatever if they couldn't get it free so there's no lost sale. And businesses won't risk having pirated software.

There is also the argument that you have a generation of people massively familiar with your software then you reap the rewards later when they move into work and their familiarity with your software ensures continued market dominance.

 

[Radiation]

Do you know what would fix a lot of problems? if company's didn't believe in everlasting profits for a piece of data, for instanced, say i make a song, i would be more than happy to make a fair profit from it, so if i say £50000 is fair as a limit on profits, once thats reached i've been paid for my work more than fairly and so it should then essentially become free to everyone, of course if i make a song for personal use and only share with friends and family who i choose and don't wish to make a profit from it, then i can see a good reason it never leaves copyright.

Same with movies but with a much large profit target, some percentage in profits should be reached then it leaves copyright and its free to all, if anyone distributes it they can put a charge on it of course but people can and would just go elsewhere for free, so everyone wins, the content makers and distributors get a fair profit, then it hits that target point and becomes free to all.

The problem is they expect everlasting profits on something that can be copied infinity and for next to no cost, its basically an artificial limit on something that is limitless, im all for fair profits but not greed, this is the problem with business in general.

Hate to quote myself but i was quite interested to know peoples thoughts on this, haven't i just solved the problem here?

 

[Glaucus]

Defend what? It's already been established that those who illegally download music often spend much more on music than your average legal downloader.

I personally couldn't give a toss if the "industry" has spat its dummy out over the past few years. It's an archaic system that I'll be glad to see die.

trying to defend copyright infringement, So they spend more money, that makes it right and ok does it..

 

[bigredshark]

There is also the argument that you have a generation of people massively familiar with your software then you reap the rewards later when they move into work and their familiarity with your software ensures continued market dominance.

Oh god yes, that doesn't stop there. Why do you think Microsoft are tripping over themselves to be involved in the OLPC project and get Windows into Africa in general. None of the big software companies are dumb...

 

[kylew]

trying to defend copyright infringement, So they spend more money, that makes it right and ok does it..

You seem to be under the illusion that people actually care what you think of them?

People aren't nearly trying to justify copyright infringement as much as you think.

They give their REASONS and or thoughts on it, that's not justifications for you to pass judgement on though now is it?

 

[bigredshark]

Hate to quote myself but i was quite interested to know peoples thoughts on this, haven't i just solved the problem here?

Very difficult to implement though, it becomes a variation of the prisoners dilemma where people just wait for it to breach the profit ceiling so they can get it for free and hence nobody buys it and it never becomes free.