An excuse for Piracy.
- Thread starter LooK iTz Jinjo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I only pirate music, first off. i rent movies and games etc if i dont want to buy them.
the music industry is fairly twisted and unfair towards the musicians. most artists get as little as 20c per album sale. I refuse to fund the corporations that are taking the profits of the artist.
On that note, if i listen to music and enjoy it, i may be inclined to purchase band merchandise and see them live, which for me is more fulfilling and also better for the artists.
the music industry is fairly twisted and unfair towards the musicians. most artists get as little as 20c per album sale. I refuse to fund the corporations that are taking the profits of the artist.
On that note, if i listen to music and enjoy it, i may be inclined to purchase band merchandise and see them live, which for me is more fulfilling and also better for the artists.
1. If you cannot buy it new in a regular shop or get an unused copy through mailorder or DL it from Steam or Stardock, pirate it.
The people who made it cannot possibly see any money from it anyway. I'm ok with abandonware.
I get the logic behind the try-before-you-buy piracy, but most advocates try what they like indefinitely, or until they get bored with it.
Finally, buying a game and then dling a crack to avoid a copy protection scheme or something else preventing you from playing your game, isn't "piracy" in my book.
2. trash
The people who made it cannot possibly see any money from it anyway. I'm ok with abandonware.
I get the logic behind the try-before-you-buy piracy, but most advocates try what they like indefinitely, or until they get bored with it.
Finally, buying a game and then dling a crack to avoid a copy protection scheme or something else preventing you from playing your game, isn't "piracy" in my book.
2. trash
I have an account (which could have been made with 'Freddo Frog' and 'Homer Simpson' for all they care) which was made for free on their website.Experimental said:
However, much of the music on there (especially from Indie artists) have free full-length previews and even track downloads. Many of the songs are on YouTube as well. In fact, Microsoft themselves have released a YouTube video download tool which kind of fucks that all up now doesn't it? It allows you to download ANY video off YouTube. You can then use a FREE video/audio encoder to convert the mkv/flv/wmv video file to an Mp3 or whatever you'd like.
"Actually, YES, it IS legal to download youtube videos, as long as youtube had a legal right to show that video in the first place."
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/682007
According to this, if the video was put up legally then you are allowed to download it legally. And considering most artists have videos of their tracks they have released on YouTube (which they have put up themselves), the world is your Oyster.
This is a great point. I mean what if you are looking for a very old movie or TV show that quite simply does not exist in stores ANYWHERE. Is it wrong to download it?veloper said:
Legally, there is no excuse. Honestly, I've heard some musicians outright say to steal their music if you don't have it already (Tally Hall, Streetlight Manifesto, Renard) because that's a good way to spread it. But legally it doesn't matter what they said personally. It's against the law and that's that. Technically it makes no sense, but that's not what anyone cares about.
Thankfully, people actually changed the laws regarding women and blacks. I doubt much will be done in the vein of fighting these laws, in part because piracy is primarily self serving while civil rights are not. Of course, when Martin Luther King broke the law, he still paid the price. Most acts of civil disobedience will result in some form of punishment. And it used to be that people actually paid the price. Now it seems like people want to be martyrs without any of the actual suffering.manaman said:
Sorry, Charlie.
There are very few exceptions in which the laws regarding piracy are unjust. Most excuses for piracy don't trump the rights of the author or owner. Don't like it? Fine, but that doesn't make it unjust.
well, I cant give any excuse without making myself look like a cheap bastard
but come on
look at these prices and tell me if you wouldnt even think about pirating it
but come on
look at these prices and tell me if you wouldnt even think about pirating it
If I'm pirating something (a game for example), I would've never bought it to begin with. I'm just playing it because I can. If I couldn't pirate it, the alternative wouldn't be buying it from the shop, I just wouldn't buy it and wouldn't play it.
Well, true enough, but let's agree that Microsoft isn't the best standart for great ideas; about LastFM, I didn't know they were free, but I guess they only care about the traffic and advertises.Jewrean said:
That's true, but there is a technicism over there quite tricky; because youTube says that all the videos submitted on their network should not break any copyright, or itntellectual property law, and all of this is great, the problem is that if the user submits something he shouldn't have, then there it is, a perfectly legal copyright stolen.Jewrean said:
But I agree with all that you said, it's just that I know how any law or rule can be bended by their own terms for smartasses and get away with it. In fact, I don't even care for piracy; but I find idiotic when people try to excuse it like they are doing the right thing.
If they have the guts to download for free, they should have the guts to say "I know I shouldn't but I do" instead of hiding on technicisms.
No you saying the piracy laws are 'just' is like suggesting that execution or forced transportation for stealing a loaf of bread in 18th century England was 'just'.Zachary Amaranth said:
I get the feeling you have never actually read any of the laws your saying are 'just' and just assuming that they are.
There really is no excuses for piracy, but in my experience I've found that you're better off just investing the money in the product. For games and software most of the versions you can get through piracy are plagued with bugs that completely ruin the game or program. And as for music, if you just spend a bit of time researching the album and perhaps reading reviews then you wouldn't really run into that problem. There is even the option to listen to tracks before you buy provided you have internet access, and it seems like many sites are now offering the complete tracks for your listening pleasure.
As for Linkin Park, I don't much care for the band and I don't think I really ever have.
As for Linkin Park, I don't much care for the band and I don't think I really ever have.
I thought of that too before, but a friend told me a good reasonable thought: If you pick the right game, it should last long enough until you can buy another without getting into bankruptcy.teh_Canape said:
I am from your area as well, and I can't buy more than a game each two or three months, that's why I make sure to pick the right game, a game that can last that long.
I know it's hard around here, but it's not impossible, I said goodbye to a lot of interesting titles because of it, and I won't die if I don't play it, I'm happy as long as I can pick a game I can enjoy for more than then hours.
That's not it, you could have checked out the songs on youtube before. But you didn't. Because you're a pirate. We all seek the satisfaction of those thrills.
I don't have an excuse. I do it because it's free. It's morally wrong, but I'm more concerned about my bank balance.
No a pirate is someone who steals ships and cargo, stealing data is copyright infringement, sorry to be a pedant but isn't got nothing to do with naval law.The Hairminator said:
well, the thing is, I mostly buy multiplayer games, and by the time I can afford them, the multiplayer scene of said games is pretty much deadExperimental said:
especially because I dont own next gen consoles (happened to me in bioshock 2 MP, it was a pain in the ass to find matches on pc, while on 360 there were like 5 games on each mode)
I tend to stick to games that are Public Domain, as I don't usually just have a hundred bucks lying around to buy a new game with.
However, I would have no qualms with paying from a game from an Indie developer, and I would have no qualms with pirating a game from a corporate-sized developer/publisher.
Why? In two words: Consumer sovereignty.
We, the market collectively have the capacity to tell companies what we want and what we don't. Naturally we want to encourage the former and steer away from the latter.
What behaviours can we implement to succeed in these goals? Making an idea/product/service profitable and unprofitable respectively. Regardless of all the harping on about electronic gaming as a medium of artistic expression and a reason for faster, bigger (or smaller) and better technology to deliver these experiences, at the end of the day, if there is no money in games for a company that makes games, it is out of business. Some of my favourite developers, including DC True (Shadow President, Cyberjudas), Presto Studios (The Journeynman Project series, Myst 3) and to a lesser extent Access Software (shit, everything from the Tex Murphy games, Top Spin 1&2 and the Links golfing franchise)succumbed to this fate (except the latter, which was bought and sold like AIG shares the day after the reverse split before closing because of zombie invasion or some other disappointing, un-noted reason.)
For an industry as 'unecessary' to human life and survival as electronic gaming (I resent that statement as much as you do, but society would not break down if videogames were banned completely and suddenly the same way that if say... electricity or running water were banned, or become as culturally replete if painting or sculpture or television were abruptly and absurdly discontinued), the onus is completely on the companies that participate to justify their place in human society. That leaves us at an at an advantage as consumers, because we have every right to avoid every product that isn't worth as much to us for the price as say, water, or the air we breathe, and to turn down a game because we'd rather be able to afford a month's rent. One would believe that in turn, such a position would mean that all games companies would be pumping out either the most amazing or the most unique masterpieces they can. Well, as we've seen, that's not always the case. Especially in the corporate side of the industry, where we have NYSE floated companies like EA almost exclusively publishing clones of the 4 or 5 popular themes and types of modern game and them with a famous licence slapped to it.
And so, as consumers, we are supposed to either buy what we like, or leave it. However, with the advent of the ability to distribute these unecessary forms of entertainment in ways that publishers and developers would rather you didn't comes the capability for the consumer to have a say in the way the major corporate players interact with their market. More than simply walking away and passively denying profit to an inadequate or insultingly bad cash grab, we can aggressively seek to reduce the market share and profit of such. So it comes down to a question of executing consumer power. Do we passively ignore mediocrity or pure uselessness in the games we buy, or do we aggressively show companies that what they're doing isn't worth paying for? A vote with our feet, or one with our bandwidth?
EDIT:
Oh yeah. Linkin Park. Well, I haven't heard their new album, and if they play their concert in Apartheid Israel, then I won't be interested in them as a band anymore anyway.
However, I would have no qualms with paying from a game from an Indie developer, and I would have no qualms with pirating a game from a corporate-sized developer/publisher.
Why? In two words: Consumer sovereignty.
We, the market collectively have the capacity to tell companies what we want and what we don't. Naturally we want to encourage the former and steer away from the latter.
What behaviours can we implement to succeed in these goals? Making an idea/product/service profitable and unprofitable respectively. Regardless of all the harping on about electronic gaming as a medium of artistic expression and a reason for faster, bigger (or smaller) and better technology to deliver these experiences, at the end of the day, if there is no money in games for a company that makes games, it is out of business. Some of my favourite developers, including DC True (Shadow President, Cyberjudas), Presto Studios (The Journeynman Project series, Myst 3) and to a lesser extent Access Software (shit, everything from the Tex Murphy games, Top Spin 1&2 and the Links golfing franchise)succumbed to this fate (except the latter, which was bought and sold like AIG shares the day after the reverse split before closing because of zombie invasion or some other disappointing, un-noted reason.)
For an industry as 'unecessary' to human life and survival as electronic gaming (I resent that statement as much as you do, but society would not break down if videogames were banned completely and suddenly the same way that if say... electricity or running water were banned, or become as culturally replete if painting or sculpture or television were abruptly and absurdly discontinued), the onus is completely on the companies that participate to justify their place in human society. That leaves us at an at an advantage as consumers, because we have every right to avoid every product that isn't worth as much to us for the price as say, water, or the air we breathe, and to turn down a game because we'd rather be able to afford a month's rent. One would believe that in turn, such a position would mean that all games companies would be pumping out either the most amazing or the most unique masterpieces they can. Well, as we've seen, that's not always the case. Especially in the corporate side of the industry, where we have NYSE floated companies like EA almost exclusively publishing clones of the 4 or 5 popular themes and types of modern game and them with a famous licence slapped to it.
And so, as consumers, we are supposed to either buy what we like, or leave it. However, with the advent of the ability to distribute these unecessary forms of entertainment in ways that publishers and developers would rather you didn't comes the capability for the consumer to have a say in the way the major corporate players interact with their market. More than simply walking away and passively denying profit to an inadequate or insultingly bad cash grab, we can aggressively seek to reduce the market share and profit of such. So it comes down to a question of executing consumer power. Do we passively ignore mediocrity or pure uselessness in the games we buy, or do we aggressively show companies that what they're doing isn't worth paying for? A vote with our feet, or one with our bandwidth?
EDIT:
Oh yeah. Linkin Park. Well, I haven't heard their new album, and if they play their concert in Apartheid Israel, then I won't be interested in them as a band anymore anyway.