Electronic Piracy

Electronic Piracy should be illegal.

  • Yes

    Votes: 49 55.1%

  • No

    Votes: 40 44.9%
  • Total voters
    89
Solaris said:
Really though, whats wrong about stealing from rich people? Boo-Hoo Mr.Rich capitalist has lost a wee bit of his profit margin.

#care @ irc.quakenet.org tbh.
Click to expand...

Because you're taking wages away from his employees essentially.
 
Solaris said:
Really though, whats wrong about stealing from rich people? Boo-Hoo Mr.Rich capitalist has lost a wee bit of his profit margin.

#care @ irc.quakenet.org tbh.
Click to expand...

I like how you threw in the "capitalist" bit with a negative connotation just to cement what a you are.

"lol rich people don't really deserve that money, so liek who caers"
 
Solaris, shut up.

As the comrade before me posted, all you thieving scum do is take money away from the lowest elements of the food chain - the people that distribute, master, mix, clean etc. the things you steal.

Without the "capitalist" you villify, there would be no worldwide available music, because there would be no-one to invest in and amplify the potential of upcoming bands.
 
We are not the guilty party if the capitalist chooses to fire thoose who earn pittance so he can continue to earn millions.
 
Yes, yes you are, dirty thieves.

If something does not sell, it therefore does not make a profit. If it does not generate a profit, it therefore generates loss. If it generates loss, it's harmful to the company. In order to compensate for the generated loss, the employer needs to cut down on expenses, in this case salaries.

So, just because your childish demand for free music was satisfied, several people might lose their work if you are one of the several thousand thieves that decided to download, rather than buy the record.

Learn some basic economics, kid.
 
My Marxist rhetoric probably doesn't apply to modern society very well.
 
Yes Solaris, especially that ideology that Marx was a co-creator of resulted in a single most bloody regime of the 20th century - the Soviet Union, which killed much more people than Hitler's Third Reich.

Marx was mistaken.
 
It wouldn't really apply very well at any point in history.

Arguably, the closest we've come to true communism was with the feudal fiefdoms of the middle ages.
So much for alleviating the woes of the working class there.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
It wouldn't really apply very well at any point in history.

Arguably, the closest we've come to true communism was with the feudal fiefdoms of the middle ages.
So much for alleviating the woes of the working class there.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the proto-factory prior to widespread industrialisation is probably the closest on a small scale.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Yes Solaris, especially that ideology that Marx was a co-creator of resulted in a single most bloody regime of the 20th century - the Soviet Union, which killed much more people than Hitler's Third Reich.

Marx was mistaken.
Click to expand...
If we hold Marx responcable for the millions murdered by Stalin, we must hold Lincoln responcable for the Iraq war, Cromwell for Tony Blairs crimes against the middle east, Marting Luther King for any Murders by a Black man against a white man in a bathroom ect.

Bluntly, under Stalin the soviety union was not communist and not remotely marxist.
 
Solaris said:
Bluntly, under Stalin the soviety union was not communist and not remotely marxist.
Click to expand...

You mean apart from the centralised government planned economy, nationalised industries and collectivised farming?

The only major diversion from Marx's philosophy that I can think of was that Stalin decided to go it alone - he thought communism was possible within a single country, whereas Marx argued that it had to be an international thing.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
For the price of an average band t-shirt, you could buy up to three actual albums.

For someone with no money, you certainly seem able to use the internet and buy expensive clothes.

Also,"commensal" is a synonym for "parasitic".
That's not exactly the sort of thing you brag about.

If you aren't paying, then you are getting something you do not deserve. That's that whole rape problem that Frendzy has too.
It's not about the music or the information. It's about the human right to privacy, and the consent required to surpass that.

What you are doing is exactly the same as breaking into a concert or movie theatre.
Or even hiding in the trunk of someone's car to get a free trip somewhere.
You wouldn't do any of those things in reality, obviously, but the internet lets you act like a "commensal" ass with so much ease and comfort, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
I used commensal in the sense of one benefiting from another not being effected. and the whole point about the T-shirt thing is that they may end up getting some benefit.

And frankly I get the impression from your post that you are pretty pissed off at me for conveying my opinion. There's no need for petty insults.

Unfortunately illegal downloading is being accepted by society, and I'm merely giving in.

EDIT: It may just be my being naive, but how does downloading music equate to an invasion of privacy?
 
Surfdom! Lets surf our way to socialist herocracy!
 
Um, Solaris, your spelling skills seem to have dropped.

Or somebody's messing wiht your account.

On topic: Electronic piracy is just as bad as real-world piracy, just without the arrs.
 
Thadius Dean said:
I used commensal in the sense of one benefiting from another not being effected. and the whole point about the T-shirt thing is that they may end up getting some benefit.

And frankly I get the impression from your post that you are pretty pissed off at me for conveying my opinion. There's no need for petty insults.

Unfortunately illegal downloading is being accepted by society, and I'm merely giving in.

EDIT: It may just be my being naive, but how does downloading music equate to an invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

I'm informally antagonistic to everyone who uses flawed logic to justify crimes/stupidity/religion/etc.
Don't assume that it's as a result of anger, any more than one can get "angry" at a wrong answer in your math test.

There's a right answer (which I've already written out in this thread), and you simply didn't get it.


So why is it that your stealing music constitutes a violation of privacy?

The simple answer is that privacy is inherently the ability to conceal information from those who you do not wish to obtain it.

Musicians conceal their infomation on packaged compact discs to prevent everyone but their paying customers from obtaining it.
All commercial music is private information that you pay to access.
When you buy a CD, you aren't simply buying the music. That's a misconception.
What you are buying is the consent of the artist, under which they let you listen to their private information.

Think of it in terms of a DVD rental. You borrow the information, under a contract, and then return it at a specified time. If you don't follow the rules, you end up with a fine, or some other punishment.
The DVD itself isn't important. You just give it back.
What matters is the information that the store has allowed you to consume.

A full-blown purchase is exactly the same, except you are allowed permanent access to the information, provided you follow the rules (AKA international laws) that ensure the privacy of the artist is protected.

That's the same sort of enforced privacy that prevents you trespassing on my property, entering my home, hacking into my computer, etc. Obviously there's nothing commensal about it. Even if you break nothing and leave everything the way it was, you've still accessed my personal information without consent.
It's blatantly criminal.

Your excuses for violating people's privacy on a massive scale are:

1) You enjoy the service to such a degree that you must have it.
2) You are unable to obtain consent.
3) "Everyone else is doing it."
4) T-shirt karma will make it better.

Music isn't essential. You're just spoiled.
And even if it were absolutely vital to obtain, you can listen to internet radio, while plenty of bands give out free samples. Both of which have the implicit consent of the artist.

Hell, a one-minute search can turn up sites like www.pandora.com which gives unlimited free music with no commercials or www.sonicx.com which can help pinpoint official free samples for permanent download (although they are rather piratey otherwise).

So obtaining consent is easy, even if you have ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY WHATSOEVER - which isn't even your situation in the first place. If you want better quality, or a specific track, you'll probably have to spend maybe 10 dollars.

The third point you made obviously doesn't dignify a response and as for the t-shirt, that doesn't help shit. You violated people's consent and then bought a T-shirt. So you obtained two things and only paid for one. Really moral there. Those actions are mutually exclusive.
 
Alright, I get the privacy thing. And while you are blowing my excuses out of proportion, what you say is basically true.

But consider this: I steal a CD from a store: the owner finds out and ensures that I am punished and taught that what I did was wrong. Now a musician finds out I stole a CD from him: Would they pursue me?

Another scenario: I tell my teacher or parent that I stole a CD from a store. They would probably be pretty concerned about this. But if I explained that I stole the CD off the internet, I'd think it would change the situation a bit.

While stealing off the internet is still wrong, I think it's different from stealing in real life, and should be treated such.
 
The fact is that it's not, if you download a song, it's the same as stealing the cd from the guy, without the cd part. I lamely justify myself by saying that if I didn't download it, I wouldn't have gone to the store to buy it or whipped out my card to purchase it for download either. I just simply WOULDN'T DO A THING and therefore is the same as not stealing from the guy because it's just the guy's song/ whatever is downloaded and not a material object that is actually (the cd) obtained which cost money for distributors to make and they end up cutting wages form employees.

I didn't steal the cd which they made so I'm not stealing from them (the manufacturer), just the artist or whatever. Whenever I am not lazy, I do go to the store to buy the cd. Also some information to note, possibley back up my 'pirating' is the fact that this is happening to the manufacturing companies anyways due to the ability to PURCHASE songs online which is becoming big by the 'non-pirates' who want to pay to download their songs and do so. This way the manufacturer still doesn't get paid (this time just by the 'non-pirates') and just have lost a lot of customers. These people aren't stealilng from the manufacterer, but are giving money to another one (the place they download it from, say napster) who doesn't lose as much profit because they dont sell hard copies.

All I've done here is take the blame for putting those hard copy manufacturers employees off of the pirates, not the artist. Yes this still makes electronic piracy illegal, just not as illegal as some claim it to be, by justification of lazy people who wouldn't get the thing if it wasn't obtainable without purchase; heh.
 
/me jumps in the thread without reading other posts

I think copyrights should exist. And if someone infringes on those rights then they should be held accountable just like any other law. It isn't considered stealing by the law (you would be infringing on someones right of their intellectual property) but I think it is the same morally. Our laws seem to focus on the victim or the How. Does the owner get his property taken or is it just copied? It's categorized and punished differently (which is fine).

But I still consider it stealing (not the legal term) when the person doing the act is taking something they are not entitled to. The same thing is running through their head whether they are shoplifting some candy or downloading copyrighted music/programs. Cheating someone out of what was theirs. If someone was selling music and were expecting to get paid in return then they are not getting that money if it was pirated (artists, record companies, retail sales or whoever it may be). Or if it was just an idea and you now claim it was yours, you cheated whoever out of their work/research/ideas. I'm glad we have copyrights. I think a lot of the people in this world are selfish and think about what's in it for them more than people used to. Maybe thinking "what can I get away with". It's all about the self gratification.

I used to download programs and music although I don't any more. At first I dismissed it and thought nothing of it since it wasn't 'stealing' under our law. Then I decided that I would buy the music/programs that I liked but I kept downloading the other stuff anyway. But after some thinking about why I downloaded and if I was really being fair, I changed my mind on the subject. It isn't that hard to pay for what you want or go without.

go without
Click to expand...
Is it hard for you (anyone) to swallow this thought?
 
DEATHMASTER said:
I lamely justify myself by saying that if I didn't download it, I wouldn't have gone to the store to buy it or whipped out my card to purchase it for download either. I just simply WOULDN'T DO A THING and therefore is the same as not stealing from the guy because it's just the guy's song/ whatever is downloaded and not a material object that is actually (the cd) obtained which cost money for distributors to make and they end up cutting wages form employees.
Click to expand...

That's not just lame. It's flat-out stupid.

Obviously you would pay for it because you took steps to steal it. Your goal is to take that music from someone else.
You just decided to do it the wrong way.

"Laziness" isn't a reason to violate the consent required to do so because, given that the act of purchasing music is something even a retarded chimp could accomplish, you would have to be incapacitated in some way for that to be an issue. Especially when you can buy any track you want online for a dollar.

Being antisocial is the problem here.

Another scenario: I tell my teacher or parent that I stole a CD from a store. They would probably be pretty concerned about this. But if I explained that I stole the CD off the internet, I'd think it would change the situation a bit.

While stealing off the internet is still wrong, I think it's different from stealing in real life, and should be treated such.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a real mythological difference there.
I've already told you that the CD does not matter. If your parents don't care, that's probably because they, like you, are stuck thinking in terms of physical objects when that simply doesn't apply to reality today.

The crime isn't any different, except the information you steal is slightly cheaper due to less packaging.

The only difference is in how likely you are to be caught.
And no, that's not an excuse either.
 
Piracy is market economics at its finest.
The easily accessible and mostly anonymous online black market can provide products that are generally superior to the legal copies (due to availability, speed and anti-piracy features in purchased software that hinder legitimate users) at no cost.
Companies use every method there is to gain an advantage, why shouldn't consumers do the same?
"Waaah, I'm not going to get to buy another private jet this year because people are pirating my software!"
Pussies. When they give consumers a reason to give them money again, they will get their money. Corporations don't create products out of the goodness of their hearts, the idea that consumers should give them money out of the goodness of theirs is laughable, naive and subservient.
The only difference is that corporate rights are more well protected under law than consumer rights.
Adapt or die. Nature's law.
 
For once, I agree with you completely mr. repriV.
 
Okay, my opinion on electronic piracy:

Its stealing. I don't care what else it is, its still stealing. You are taking something that is being sold for money, for free. You are taking it. ITS STEALING.

What don't you understand about that?

PIRACY = STEALING.

Oh yes, a lot of you are probobly saying how you download it, and if you like it you buy it. I personally don't think thats moral, but thats fine.

However, there are a lot of people who steal things worth lots of money, and don't ever pay a cent. That. Is. Stealing. I don't care what else you say, its thievery. I don't see any form of logic that can fight that fact. Its the freaking DEFINITION of stealing. Oi.
 
repiV, is your stupidity inherited or learned?

You show a complete lack of understanding of economy and basic terms, such as "theft", "intellectual property" and "illegal distribution".

You know why CEOs of large companies can afford private jets? Because, get it, they INVEST in young and struggling artists with potential, just like they would invest in a new revolutionary product or technology.

Because they provide artists with funds with which to record music in professional studios, not backstage garages and so that they can afford travels, CD manufacturing etc. they have the right to expect profits, in the form of money being slowly returned to them in the form of CD sales prices.

Now, the investor WILL get the money back. But, if the amount is below the initial investment, it is deemed a venture generating loss, and no company can afford losses in the long run, so the venture is shut down and to cut down on costs the personnel working on it is either transferred or sacked.

See? Your actions hit the CONSUMER, not the corporation.

And you are just a petty, small minded thief with no balls. Why don't you steal an MP3 player, or a PC outright, just to have something to listen to the stolen music on and "not to give money to the [.....] (insert derogatory adjective) company"?

You sir, are an official "Moron Sergeant".
 
That's because of thieving morons we, honest and decent gamers have to struggle with price raises, because the man distributing the game HAS to make a profit, else he goes out of business.
 
I thought we were talking about music...

I think we all can agree that stealing games off the internet is a big no-no.
 
So, what's different between artists who write music which gets distributed, and developers who make a piece of software which then gets distributed?
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
repiV, is your stupidity inherited or learned?

You show a complete lack of understanding of economy and basic terms, such as "theft", "intellectual property" and "illegal distribution".

You know why CEOs of large companies can afford private jets? Because, get it, they INVEST in young and struggling artists with potential, just like they would invest in a new revolutionary product or technology.

Because they provide artists with funds with which to record music in professional studios, not backstage garages and so that they can afford travels, CD manufacturing etc. they have the right to expect profits, in the form of money being slowly returned to them in the form of CD sales prices.

Now, the investor WILL get the money back. But, if the amount is below the initial investment, it is deemed a venture generating loss, and no company can afford losses in the long run, so the venture is shut down and to cut down on costs the personnel working on it is either transferred or sacked.

See? Your actions hit the CONSUMER, not the corporation.

And you are just a petty, small minded thief with no balls. Why don't you steal an MP3 player, or a PC outright, just to have something to listen to the stolen music on and "not to give money to the [.....] (insert derogatory adjective) company"?

You sir, are an official "Moron Sergeant".
Click to expand...

Get on your high horse all you want, I'm sure it makes you feel high and mighty.
The fact of the matter is, if a company cannot provide value for money, they will lose sales. When they make it worth purchasing games again, people will buy.
So long as they delay release dates in certain regions whilst the game is available freely online, they will lose out.
You think they give a shit about you? You're extremely naive.
They reserve the right to do whatever it takes to get money out of me, and I reserve the same right to get the greatest benefit for the least money.
That's the way of the world - and morality has nothing to do with it. You don't have to like it, but go preach to someone who gives a damn. Companies don't care about me, and I don't care about them. Just as capitalism intended.
 
repiV said:
Get on your high horse all you want, I'm sure it makes you feel high and mighty.
The fact of the matter is, if a company cannot provide value for money, they will lose sales. When they make it worth purchasing games again, people will buy.
So long as they delay release dates in certain regions whilst the game is available freely online, they will lose out.
You think they give a shit about you? You're extremely naive.
They reserve the right to do whatever it takes to get money out of me, and I reserve the same right to get the greatest benefit for the least money.
That's the way of the world - and morality has nothing to do with it. You don't have to like it, but go preach to someone who gives a damn. Companies don't care about me, and I don't care about them. Just as capitalism intended.
Click to expand...
He has a point.
 
That point being justification of crime.

You see, it's not about companies, it's about simple human decency and respect for other man's work. Each company is composed of men just like you and me, and music/software is the effect of their continued hard work.

By stealing it you take their income, income they DESERVE, from them.

It seems your stupidity is inherent and inherited - it must be a blessing that you can buy your aunt a present and not worry about getting one for Mother's Day, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Omnomnick
CS:GO Update Introduces "Music Kits"
Replies
7
Views
5K
User With No Name
User With No Name
Back
Top