ACTA, SOPA and PIPA
- Thread starter masta247
- Start date
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I do not deny that movie studios, record companies etc make massive profits, but to deny that those profits would be larger if piracy were not an issue is absurd. You can make the arguement that why should they care about that extra money, they already make more than 99% of the world. Well, why would you care if you got shorted on hours at work or didn't not recieve your overtime pay?
Anyways, I'm not defending the bill. I'm merely saying I agree with stopping piracy
I don't get this. I won't comment on software as I don't know much about it, but there have been numerous quality tv shows, movies, video games, and music released over the past 12 years or so. Yet a only a small percentage pay for it. We just don't have the luxury of nostalgia and hindsight (with the exception of the early 00's) toforget about the garbage the way we do with the 80s and 90s.
Anyways, I'm not defending the bill. I'm merely saying I agree with stopping piracy
I don't get this. I won't comment on software as I don't know much about it, but there have been numerous quality tv shows, movies, video games, and music released over the past 12 years or so. Yet a only a small percentage pay for it. We just don't have the luxury of nostalgia and hindsight (with the exception of the early 00's) toforget about the garbage the way we do with the 80s and 90s.
For content creators, especially those lobbying Congress to pass these bills, piracy really isn't a huge problem, in terms of how much money they make. It is an acceptable cost of doing business, like expecting (and accounting for it in your books) someone will steal a piece of candy if you're running a small corner market in a town. Movie studios earn huge margins through their antiquated methods of distribution of content. The movie studios want to turn piracy into a moral and ethical issue and some like Ristol and FlipMo are falling for it. But that's just a scapegoat. The reality is that these big media companies are simply reluctant to change. They are unwilling to accept changing consumer behavior and technological change. If I can obtain a movie or album easier for free than by paying for it, that is the companies' fault. There's no technological reason why, on the date the Dark Night Rises is released, I shouldn't be able to pay a reasonable fee and watch it instantly on my TV screen. But movie studios and theaters aren't willing to let go of their huge margins and overpriced condiments. That is not my problem. That is theirs. The reality is, people who pirate the most are those who pay the most for content. The people who pirate content and never pay for it are those who probably wouldn't pay for it if they had no other choice. That is why the methodology used for calculating economic loss due to online piracy is a complete joke.
What Prize Gotti said is also valid but misses the fact of the matter that I should not have to pay the same price I paid in the 80s for a film no matter how good the new film is. That is simply because of the way technology has changed. You either adapt or you go the way of Kodak.
What Prize Gotti said is also valid but misses the fact of the matter that I should not have to pay the same price I paid in the 80s for a film no matter how good the new film is. That is simply because of the way technology has changed. You either adapt or you go the way of Kodak.
I don't "pirate" things anymore (mainly because I barely watch movies or play games and I pay when I do) but I can honestly say that I wouldn't have bought most things that I have right now if it wasn't for downloading them beforehand in the past. I'm not going to condone piracy but it doesn't reduce your sales. It's exactly the opposite, it makes people intrested in your product if it's good.
Piracy and "billions" lost because of lower sales is a popular talk of companies that release piece of shit products.
If I watched a good movie I would love to go and see it in a cinema. If I found out about a great game that I had lots of fun with I would want to have it. And perfectly I would have those things delivered in a MORE convenient way, which DOES NOT happen.
The problem is with people who spread things, get money from that and scream "don't pay the license fee, pay me for giving it to you for less". That's where license fees should kick in, because technically this guy is a distributor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I've always seen it like this - distributors are almost equal to "illegal uploaders", but they get paid for their work, for spreading licensed copies. They usually charge MUCH more than they should, often far more than the artist himself. If you're a programmer you often earn less than a faggot working for a major publisher, which keeps the media/information prices that high.
Here we have distributors lobbying to keep the prices very high and earn a lot, so the availability of games is poor, they are very expensive and basically don't sell. Obviously they blame piracy!
So my solution is here I believe that you should fight with people who get paid for spreading licensed content by charging them with a fee, so in the end they would have to charge a fee or find other ways to earn money to pay license fees for licensed things that they upload. So if you want to upload a movie on your ad-enabled site you would have to pay a license fee directly to the artist or his company. You would probably have to charge a small fee for every download too to break even or turn a small profit, but everyone would be happy because artists would get their share, uploaders would get a small amount of money too and the final consumer would get a product almost for what it's really worth.
It would be good for everyone except of huge distributors who are the biggest assholes here, and they get empowered by the likes of SOPA to be even bigger assholes and steal more money.
At the same time license owners (what photographers, thesis' authors and open source programmers do now) could also dictate the license conditions, like fees, or offering a license for free too.
That would be my solution and I belive that's where it should all head.
Bear in mind that you don't have to get paid directly for the job that you do. You could license your thesis and make it "open source" but If someone uses your thesis to earn money from it you get a small license fee, all other people could share it to gain knowledge from.
Most programmers and companies manufacturing consumer software don't get paid from directly selling that product to you.
Think of the browser that you're using, instant messenger and actually most other programs that you use, that is usually freeware and programmers working on them have earned their money.
Piracy and "billions" lost because of lower sales is a popular talk of companies that release piece of shit products.
If I watched a good movie I would love to go and see it in a cinema. If I found out about a great game that I had lots of fun with I would want to have it. And perfectly I would have those things delivered in a MORE convenient way, which DOES NOT happen.
The problem is with people who spread things, get money from that and scream "don't pay the license fee, pay me for giving it to you for less". That's where license fees should kick in, because technically this guy is a distributor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I've always seen it like this - distributors are almost equal to "illegal uploaders", but they get paid for their work, for spreading licensed copies. They usually charge MUCH more than they should, often far more than the artist himself. If you're a programmer you often earn less than a faggot working for a major publisher, which keeps the media/information prices that high.
Here we have distributors lobbying to keep the prices very high and earn a lot, so the availability of games is poor, they are very expensive and basically don't sell. Obviously they blame piracy!
So my solution is here I believe that you should fight with people who get paid for spreading licensed content by charging them with a fee, so in the end they would have to charge a fee or find other ways to earn money to pay license fees for licensed things that they upload. So if you want to upload a movie on your ad-enabled site you would have to pay a license fee directly to the artist or his company. You would probably have to charge a small fee for every download too to break even or turn a small profit, but everyone would be happy because artists would get their share, uploaders would get a small amount of money too and the final consumer would get a product almost for what it's really worth.
It would be good for everyone except of huge distributors who are the biggest assholes here, and they get empowered by the likes of SOPA to be even bigger assholes and steal more money.
At the same time license owners (what photographers, thesis' authors and open source programmers do now) could also dictate the license conditions, like fees, or offering a license for free too.
That would be my solution and I belive that's where it should all head.
Bear in mind that you don't have to get paid directly for the job that you do. You could license your thesis and make it "open source" but If someone uses your thesis to earn money from it you get a small license fee, all other people could share it to gain knowledge from.
Most programmers and companies manufacturing consumer software don't get paid from directly selling that product to you.
Think of the browser that you're using, instant messenger and actually most other programs that you use, that is usually freeware and programmers working on them have earned their money.
There is no way to stop piracy. The only way to reduce piracy is to give consumers a good enough reason to pay for their content use. That would require an overhaul of the entire system of content distribution and consumption, and content dinosaurs would rather turn us into North Korea before changing their way of business.
Piracy forces companies to change their business model.
Take Television for example. Soon there will be very little broadcast. Everything will be on demand, when you want it. And TV shows will be released worldwide at the same time. This is thanks to your TIVO, your SKY+ and your piracy....
I'd also like to add... That piracy is a way of life. If you really think this bill will stop piracy then you know very little about human beings, and about the internet. It might not be available as easily as it is now. But I guarantee you, I will be able to download music illegally, should I choose, from now until the day I die.
Take Television for example. Soon there will be very little broadcast. Everything will be on demand, when you want it. And TV shows will be released worldwide at the same time. This is thanks to your TIVO, your SKY+ and your piracy....
I'd also like to add... That piracy is a way of life. If you really think this bill will stop piracy then you know very little about human beings, and about the internet. It might not be available as easily as it is now. But I guarantee you, I will be able to download music illegally, should I choose, from now until the day I die.
To download something illegally, you usually have to make a specific search. And you don’t go searching unless you’re interested. If you were interested enough to engage in that process and were unable to find a freebie, chances seem pretty good you’d fork over some money for it. So yeah, it’s a lost sale. Maybe not 100%, but the loss is large enough.
This is naive. People act in patterns. People who steal without repercussions will continue to steal. If you steal Jay-Z's Watch the Throne and like it, are you going to run to Amazon and pay forThe Blueprint and The Black Album and the others? I don’t know about your planet, but that’s not about to happen on mine.
Downloading a movie is not necessirely stealing - which is what corporations would like you to believe that it always is. It's often learning and trying things out if done right and fair.
In the world of many reasonable IT companies it's pretty much a common opinion that piracy helps you with marketing of your products if they're appealing to your customer and you're able to provide them in a correct way. People who won't download your product wouldn't buy it at all, perhaps wouldn't even know or be interested in the type of products that you sell. If you really like something you don't download that if you're a "real pirate", not a bitch.
Even if you're an immature teenager who "doesn't give a shit and downloads like crazy" you will once grow thanks to things that you downloaded, grow interests and start buying these things. A guy like that wouldn't buy games if he didn't pirate a copy, play it and like it.
In the video game industry companies only condone chasing pirates if they know that in the future they might make a product that will not necessirely be too great, that will get boring after an hour or are very shallow. They want to blame piracy for their failures, and they believe in that themselves. They would like to chase people down and sue the shit out of them because they want money from them, and stupid reasons to get more money.
A great example here would be the Witcher 2. It contains no anti-piracy systems because the developer did not want to make life any harder for people who buy the final product (pirates usually get better, cracked versions), because they did not believe that piracy reduces game sales. Furthermore, it was developed and published by a Polish company, which is where piracy thrives, and it was one of the most pirated game worldwide. They had little marketing money. Results? The game is one of the best selling RPGs and it was only released for PC so far.
If they started calculating losses like some companies do they would probably come to conclusions that if it wasn't for piracy almost every person on our globe would buy a copy. Of course that's bullshit.
What's ethical, what's not? You either get fooled by huge marketing campaigns from companies that spend millions of dollars to make you buy their piece of shit game that you will get bored of after an hour (or keep playing believing them that it's good) or try it yourself and then if it's worth it, buy it. On another hand you have "evil people who buy a game and share it to other people, some of which might download that INSTEAD of buying a copy so developers won't get that money". From my experience the former is waay more widespread. I agree that both options suck and there should be a solution to these problems. If it comes to the latter one I already mentioned what I think would be fair in my previous post. There's still no solution to the former problem.
In the end, there's research claiming that piracy might indeed boost your sales, and even the most "anti-piracy" (but reasonable) research states that if piracy negatively affects your business, the losses are almost negligible.
About the world that I live in? I and most of my friends who used to download things have original copies (including collector's editions) of things that they like. They wouldn't have found them or be interested in the genre in the first place if it wasn't for "trying things out" in the past.
Years ago when I was a teenager I would listen to hundreds of cds (I wouldn't buy any of them) that led me to a position where I bought quite a lot of cds that I used to like in the past. Same with video games - I bought more than I ever 'downloaded', and I wouldn't have bought perhaps any of them if it wasn't for pirated copies that I tried back then. Now I don't have any downloaded copies at all.
In the world of many reasonable IT companies it's pretty much a common opinion that piracy helps you with marketing of your products if they're appealing to your customer and you're able to provide them in a correct way. People who won't download your product wouldn't buy it at all, perhaps wouldn't even know or be interested in the type of products that you sell. If you really like something you don't download that if you're a "real pirate", not a bitch.
Even if you're an immature teenager who "doesn't give a shit and downloads like crazy" you will once grow thanks to things that you downloaded, grow interests and start buying these things. A guy like that wouldn't buy games if he didn't pirate a copy, play it and like it.
In the video game industry companies only condone chasing pirates if they know that in the future they might make a product that will not necessirely be too great, that will get boring after an hour or are very shallow. They want to blame piracy for their failures, and they believe in that themselves. They would like to chase people down and sue the shit out of them because they want money from them, and stupid reasons to get more money.
A great example here would be the Witcher 2. It contains no anti-piracy systems because the developer did not want to make life any harder for people who buy the final product (pirates usually get better, cracked versions), because they did not believe that piracy reduces game sales. Furthermore, it was developed and published by a Polish company, which is where piracy thrives, and it was one of the most pirated game worldwide. They had little marketing money. Results? The game is one of the best selling RPGs and it was only released for PC so far.
If they started calculating losses like some companies do they would probably come to conclusions that if it wasn't for piracy almost every person on our globe would buy a copy. Of course that's bullshit.
What's ethical, what's not? You either get fooled by huge marketing campaigns from companies that spend millions of dollars to make you buy their piece of shit game that you will get bored of after an hour (or keep playing believing them that it's good) or try it yourself and then if it's worth it, buy it. On another hand you have "evil people who buy a game and share it to other people, some of which might download that INSTEAD of buying a copy so developers won't get that money". From my experience the former is waay more widespread. I agree that both options suck and there should be a solution to these problems. If it comes to the latter one I already mentioned what I think would be fair in my previous post. There's still no solution to the former problem.
In the end, there's research claiming that piracy might indeed boost your sales, and even the most "anti-piracy" (but reasonable) research states that if piracy negatively affects your business, the losses are almost negligible.
About the world that I live in? I and most of my friends who used to download things have original copies (including collector's editions) of things that they like. They wouldn't have found them or be interested in the genre in the first place if it wasn't for "trying things out" in the past.
Years ago when I was a teenager I would listen to hundreds of cds (I wouldn't buy any of them) that led me to a position where I bought quite a lot of cds that I used to like in the past. Same with video games - I bought more than I ever 'downloaded', and I wouldn't have bought perhaps any of them if it wasn't for pirated copies that I tried back then. Now I don't have any downloaded copies at all.
Before downloads, you would have "tried things out" because one of your friends had bought it. Or you heard it on the radio or saw it in the movies. For all the things you liked enough to get collector editions of, how much pirated stuff didn't make you spend a cent? Of course if an unknown band wants to get interest up, they can make their stuff available free, but that's their choice, not some pirate.
I wouldn't try them out because of my friends or radio (usually) simply because 99% of things that I like don't belong to my friends and aren't played on the radio. These days there's youtube (uploading to which will be basically illegal after SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) and vast free knowledgebase (majority of which will also disappear) so it's a bit less justified at this very moment.
I believe that your reasoning here is wrong (no offense, really) because you look at things from the wrong perspective that doesn't really reflect the reality of piracy. At first it appears more reasonable that you "steal" a game/movie/audio cd because you would otherwise pay for it if you wanted to play. It's not how it works in reality.
If I couldn't download things I wouldn't have spent a cent on these things that I downloaded back then, that I didn't buy. I simply wouldn't know of them, or I would be "meh" about them, just like I was at some point about things that I bought in the end - because I found them, tried and liked. Then their sequels, then related things from similar genres I wouldn't be able to experience otherwise.
More people would be sparked to buy things after downloading them than without having that opportunity, that's the main point. It's not like an average joe would go shopping and pay a few hundred dollars to try out a new genre of music. He might pay that much if he fell in love with it by exploring it beforehand. Piracy trends are different these days too, pirates have a different mentality these days. And of course there are still people who will only download, because they can, because they don't understand the need to buy if they can have it for free, who would buy these things otherwise - but that's not the majority at all.
A bunch of links that I believe are good to gain more insight:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://torrentfreak.com/why-pirates-buy-more-music-and-music-labels-fail-090428/
an interesting study by a major game developer: http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
http://torrentfreak.com/indie-game-devs-post-pirated-game-on-the-pirate-bay-110909/
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another-view-of-game-piracy
I believe that your reasoning here is wrong (no offense, really) because you look at things from the wrong perspective that doesn't really reflect the reality of piracy. At first it appears more reasonable that you "steal" a game/movie/audio cd because you would otherwise pay for it if you wanted to play. It's not how it works in reality.
If I couldn't download things I wouldn't have spent a cent on these things that I downloaded back then, that I didn't buy. I simply wouldn't know of them, or I would be "meh" about them, just like I was at some point about things that I bought in the end - because I found them, tried and liked. Then their sequels, then related things from similar genres I wouldn't be able to experience otherwise.
More people would be sparked to buy things after downloading them than without having that opportunity, that's the main point. It's not like an average joe would go shopping and pay a few hundred dollars to try out a new genre of music. He might pay that much if he fell in love with it by exploring it beforehand. Piracy trends are different these days too, pirates have a different mentality these days. And of course there are still people who will only download, because they can, because they don't understand the need to buy if they can have it for free, who would buy these things otherwise - but that's not the majority at all.
A bunch of links that I believe are good to gain more insight:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music
http://torrentfreak.com/why-pirates-buy-more-music-and-music-labels-fail-090428/
an interesting study by a major game developer: http://www.positech.co.uk/talkingtopirates.html
http://torrentfreak.com/indie-game-devs-post-pirated-game-on-the-pirate-bay-110909/
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Another-view-of-game-piracy
Not at all. See links above. There's even a study that estimates that 1000 downloaded copies equal to less than 1 copy bought. The information/marketing value of those 1000 copies is definitely far bigger.
Plus you often make a specific search because a downloaded copy of a related thing made you interested, because you googled for it on the internet and saw pieces of that work on the internet (also piracy!) or on the internet radio (piracy!). I bet that chances of this happening is bigger than that you would know of that thing beforehand with a will to buy it.
Plus you often make a specific search because a downloaded copy of a related thing made you interested, because you googled for it on the internet and saw pieces of that work on the internet (also piracy!) or on the internet radio (piracy!). I bet that chances of this happening is bigger than that you would know of that thing beforehand with a will to buy it.
err, wrong. maybe at your age.
Also, usually, YOU DON'T, have to make a specific search for it. That's how all the best piracy sites work. I simply go to a site I will not name to you now and see 90% of TV shows, films, and Music that became available that day for download. I've discovered more shows by seeing them available for illegal download than from friend recommendations.
Now, how have my consumption tastes changed since new companies who understand consumer behavior came on the map?
If I want to see a TV show or film, the first place I go to find it is Netflix. If I want to hear a new album, the first place I go to is Spotify.
Also, usually, YOU DON'T, have to make a specific search for it. That's how all the best piracy sites work. I simply go to a site I will not name to you now and see 90% of TV shows, films, and Music that became available that day for download. I've discovered more shows by seeing them available for illegal download than from friend recommendations.
Now, how have my consumption tastes changed since new companies who understand consumer behavior came on the map?
If I want to see a TV show or film, the first place I go to find it is Netflix. If I want to hear a new album, the first place I go to is Spotify.
You can't stop piracy. It's impossible. Theft has been around forever. Even in countries where they cut off your hands.... People still steal.
Business need to look at their business model. There are reasons why people pirate software, I mean.... Look at the ridiculous licencing costs for microsoft products... Another reason why their tablets will fail. If you adapt and change the business model, people will pay the fair price. If you don't you have a kodak moment... ( see what I did there)....
Look at ebooks. You can buy a physical book with printing and logistic costs, from a shop (which also has many overheads) for a certain price. That price is usually about 10% more than an ebook. This book can be lent out, and sold second hand for at least 50% of the cost you paid. With an ebook, you can't do that. So... I pirate the books for my Kindle. I don't agree with that business model, and while I can get them for free, I will. I also read the classics, which don't require any payment, legally. As royalties no longer apply.
If the publisher made ebooks legally available for a few pounds. Which is probably more than they get from the shops, people would buy them. I know I would. And what is the issue with libraries? I can borrow a physical book but not an ebook. It's ridiculous, antiquated and encouraging piracy.
Business need to look at their business model. There are reasons why people pirate software, I mean.... Look at the ridiculous licencing costs for microsoft products... Another reason why their tablets will fail. If you adapt and change the business model, people will pay the fair price. If you don't you have a kodak moment... ( see what I did there)....
Look at ebooks. You can buy a physical book with printing and logistic costs, from a shop (which also has many overheads) for a certain price. That price is usually about 10% more than an ebook. This book can be lent out, and sold second hand for at least 50% of the cost you paid. With an ebook, you can't do that. So... I pirate the books for my Kindle. I don't agree with that business model, and while I can get them for free, I will. I also read the classics, which don't require any payment, legally. As royalties no longer apply.
If the publisher made ebooks legally available for a few pounds. Which is probably more than they get from the shops, people would buy them. I know I would. And what is the issue with libraries? I can borrow a physical book but not an ebook. It's ridiculous, antiquated and encouraging piracy.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.