The Pirate Bay Founders Jailed

[Smegma]

I know little about this site at all but I do know people are getting tired of losing billions if not in the trillions of dollars in piracy. I also know these people are being very overzealous and getting in trouble for it so I don't know what to think. But to me, a site devoted for the sole purpose of distributing illegal stuff is probably bad.

Not every illegal file downloaded represents a loss in sales.

[a-4-year-old]

Not every illegal file downloaded represents a loss in sales.

True.

When Weird Al released white and nerdy and don't download this song I liked it so much I bought the album. Obviously TV movies and music have to adapt because someone is always going to pirate their stuffs. just look at hulu or south park, you can watch all kinds of shows on that legally.

[Wormdundee]

Hmm, this is true. A lot of people don't believe the argument when people say something along the lines of, "Well, I wouldn't have bought this game if I wasn't able to download it, so what's the problem?".

I know when I was still in school I didn't have a lot of spare money lying around, so any game I wanted to get, I pirated.
In the year or so that I've been out of school, I've bought all the games I currently have installed, because I can now afford it with the job.

It does seem to be a bad thing though, when the Demigod servers were trashed because they had only sold about 18,000-20,000 copies of it first day, and then had over 100,000 people trying to connect. I wonder how that works...

[Demonic]

I know little about this site at all but I do know people are getting tired of losing billions if not in the trillions of dollars in piracy. I also know these people are being very overzealous and getting in trouble for it so I don't know what to think. But to me, a site devoted for the sole purpose of distributing illegal stuff is probably bad.

Two books for you to read:

Free Culture
The Pirate's Dilemma

[LtKillroy]

The thing with hulu is you watch advertisements or there are sidebars of advertisements that generate them money. I think everyone should do that with music and stuff to basically solve that problem (watch tv/download music, you just have to watch some advertisements) and that may or may not work.

I don't pirate stuff because its simply not worth it. Stealing a song or TV saves me a few dollars and that simply isn't worth stealing for me in the slightest.

I might check out those books some time if I can find them.

[Hair|Trigger]

Well TV, radio and movies are already pretty packed with ads, so I doubt it'll solve much.  besides, you can't really expect the industry wankers to be happy with the income from ads.  TPB uses their income to keep the servers running.

[Demonic]

I don't pirate stuff because its simply not worth it. Stealing a song or TV saves me a few dollars and that simply isn't worth stealing for me in the slightest.

Theft is when you take object A without giving anything for it in the same value as return, and you cause harm to the original owner because he cannot make money out of the item you just took. You can steal a car, you can steal bread, or you can steal a DVD from a store.

When you download something, you are copying it, not taking it. That's not theft. It's just value re-definition - if everything is avaible for free, the copyright holders will have to think of something that makes you want to pay even a penny for it.

The thing about piracy is that it's a very good business model - but instead of competing with it, big labels are trying to get it banned. Nobody likes competition.

[Smegma]

or you can steal a DVD from a store.

How come a blank DVD costs less than one with a movie on it?

You aren't buying the DVD you are buying rights to own a copy, hence, you are stealing what they are marketing.

[Rook_PL]

Sure. I'm a thief. Most of us here are. And Pirate Bay was doing is evil. Even if they won't go to jail (and I'm almost certain they won't), and the law is bad, so they can be unpunished.
But it's SOOOOOOOO easy. And it's certain you'll get away with it. You won't convince people to not steal just because it's bad. They don't give s**t about wrong and right.

Take example of MM's politics. I bought Soldat. Just because it was (and still is) great and cheap. Most games aren't. Movies too.

[Demonic]

or you can steal a DVD from a store.

How come a blank DVD costs less than one with a movie on it?

You aren't buying the DVD you are buying rights to own a copy, hence, you are stealing what they are marketing.

Actually, since the movie itself is accessible for free (via piracy), you are paying for the prices of distribution, the package itself and other bonus materials (posters or w/e) that come with the DVD itself. People still buy DVD-s even though torrenting and warez sites are widely available for everyone, which shows that the added value (in this case: you owning an original copy) is still worth paying for.

Piracy is just consumers refusing to swallow shit just because a big label says so - they will only pay for something if it's good.

[Smegma]

I'm not arguing what the company pays for, but what WE pay for. Its still stealing.

[jettlarue]

I refuse to buy items from the large companies that fight piracy. f**k it, I just watch/listen in advance and then if it is appealing and the actual creators of it are making a good percentage of money then I'll drop some cash. The majority of music/movies I have bought, recommended to friends who have bought, are all things I have discovered through piracy. Before I had internet I bought less media.

EDIT: Really disappointed that tpb lost. Really disappointed they even went to trial. Sucks that they make a statement about politics and it is used to target them. Really sickening that this kind of governmental cumcake continues after we have been alive for so long, you'd think we would have figured it out by now.

[Demonic]

I'm not arguing what the company pays for, but what WE pay for. Its still stealing.

It's not stealing by definition because there is no actual loss. Since the companies pay for the things I mentioned from the money you pay them (and then generate profit in the same way), and piracy cuts out big labels from the picture.. yeah. As soon as there's a system which will really transfer 2-5$ for the CREATOR of the piece, all those big companies can go down the drain.

[Smegma]

It's not stealing by definition because there is no actual loss.

If you copy it in lieu of downloading, with the intention of buying had you not had that access, than there is a loss. Its quite funny then, that companies complain when they have no loss.

As soon as there's a system which will really transfer 2-5$ for the CREATOR of the piece, all those big companies can go down the drain.

But there's no loss, so why should the creator complain otherwise? When companies get money for selling the piece and then transfer some to the creator, essentially he should be happy he even got that money because its essentially free. Nothing was originally taken from him.

[Demonic]

Ah, I see, you're in the semantics-guerilla thing again, not actually arguing for a point, cool!

The current system is flawed because through buying songs, films and books, the majority of income goes to the company that distributes it. The internet is a powerful tool to cut out these corporations, so money transfer would be between the consumer and the creator only, with a smaller cut maybe transferred to the system itself.

Currently only the labels complain about piracy, and those artists who have not yet seen the full potential of this new system, or are just too lazy to adapt to the changing conditions.

[Smegma]

Currently only the labels complain about piracy, and those artists who have not yet seen the full potential of this new system, or are just too lazy to adapt to the changing conditions.

Then why even give the money to the artist when you can get it for free. Its still NOT stealing by your definition, and so, there is nothing wrong with the corporations.

Offtopic: I do argue for a point, its quite clear too.

[Demonic]

Then why even give the money to the artist when you can get it for free. Its still NOT stealing by your definition, and so, there is nothing wrong with the corporations.

Offtopic: I do argue for a point, its quite clear too.

For support, and added value.

People like owning original CD-s, posters, they like reading real books and attending concerts, and we like to go to the cinema as well. Since the music, film or text is more often than not already accessible for free, the things we actually pay for are other things that sum up the whole experience.

If you had a Coil tribute band, who would play the original songs of theirs in the exact same way as you can hear it on a vinyl or a CD, they still couldn't charge the same amount of money / get a place full, while the original Coil could simply because of what their name stands for.

As I see it, the big labels will fall down, and artists will have to cover the void by working more, because through the new channels of media, they can achieve the same hype and distribution (if not greater!) than the corporations did. In forty years there will be a very little number of musicians living in houses worth more than Uganda's annual GDP, but we might have a strong middle class of artists.

Or to phrase it another way, we want to pay for what we like, but we'd rather pay to the creator itself, and not more than what it's worth - but currently the price is not determined by demand, but rather by a third party, the labels, who want to make profits relentless of quality.

[Smegma]

I'm not arguing that, merely your definition of stealing is askew.

[The Epic Guy]

besides, you can't really expect the industry wankers to be happy with the income from ads.

Industry wankers are never happy with their income. Its always more, more, more.

Meh... if I can get it free, then ill get it free.

[a-4-year-old]

I'm interested in what demonic thinks about youtube with people posting music videos and including it with their videos. Should "the man" be allowed to mute these?