illegal downloads?

[razer17]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE MAN! I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIMEWIRE IS ILLEGAL, I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS. DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FROM IT IS. My last comment opened with the sentence 'I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement'. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT ILLEGAL, DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS.
Well, that had to be said. Now, about what you are failing to see. I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH FILE SHARING, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT, IT IS LIKE THEFT. (THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION) Is this really that hard to fathom?

This entire time I have been saying exactly that. You have just kept going on and on. I specifically stated exactly what you just said. All I was saying is that in your OP you say "file sharing software" not something alon the line of "Copyright material" This entire argument has therefore been pointless.

Also, yes, saying that all file sharing is theft, is indeed hard to fathom. I literally can not see why you would think that bands giving out their own music via file sharing is theft, or doesn't feel right. Especially when you said you got a letter from Virgin about using LimeWire.

I know it's a legal technology, I was agreeing with you there (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't put it in the post. I was tired). Yes, you can lend out the CD to your friends or something along those lines, but you're not supposed to let the friend rip the songs to their computer or anything like that. That was the point I meant to make: you can't let your friend have the songs on the CD. Borrowing the CD or something along those lines would be fine.

But then again, I'm still tired, so I'm not thinking straight. Hope that made sense. >_>

Oh right, yeah. You can lend it, but making copies of it is the same as just downloading a torrent. All makes sense now.

 

[dragonslayer32]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE MAN! I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIMEWIRE IS ILLEGAL, I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS. DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FROM IT IS. My last comment opened with the sentence 'I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement'. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT ILLEGAL, DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS.
Well, that had to be said. Now, about what you are failing to see. I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH FILE SHARING, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT, IT IS LIKE THEFT. (THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION) Is this really that hard to fathom?

This entire time I have been saying exactly that. You have just kept going on and on. I specifically stated exactly what you just said. All I was saying is that in your OP you say "file sharing software" not something alon the line of "Copyright material" This entire argument has therefore been pointless.

Also, yes, saying that all file sharing is theft, is indeed hard to fathom. I literally can not see why you would think that bands giving out their own music via file sharing is theft, or doesn't feel right. Especially when you said you got a letter from Virgin about using LimeWire.

First of all, I said that I had the letter, I didn't say it was addressed to me. Secondly, the fact that you can not understand something is not my fault.

 

[razer17]

First of all, I said that I had the letter, I didn't say it was addressed to me. Secondly, the fact that you can not understand something is not my fault.

Reading other peoples mail is a criminal offence. It's just wrong...

Also, it IS your fault. The view makes no sense. In the same way I don't understand the KKK's views, I don't understand your view. It seems... fucking weird. you disagree with people giving away their own stuff, and count it as theft. Sharing is caring is apparently completely lost on you.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

But the problem with that argument is that the friend doesn't own the rights to the songs, and therefore they aren't his to give away. You may own the physical disk, but you don't actually OWN the songs on the disk. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the torrents themselves not being illegal, but giving away something you don't actually own is. That's like if you lent a TV to a friend and they gave it away. Even if they had paid you to borrow it, it still wasn't theirs to give away.

If you purchase a physical CD, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Other than renting it out. You don't own the copyright, but you do own the rights to use the songs in whatever way you see fit, including public performance (such as DJ's)

And my point the whole time has been that the technology is legal, the things shared aren't. Many artists put their songs on torrents, they are allowed to give that away, and then you as a downloader can also give it away. But with commercial music, you can buy the CD, but you can't give it away (or, in your analogy, the borrowing a TV)

I know it's a legal technology, I was agreeing with you there (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't put it in the post. I was tired). Yes, you can lend out the CD to your friends or something along those lines, but you're not supposed to let the friend rip the songs to their computer or anything like that. That was the point I meant to make: you can't let your friend have the songs on the CD. Borrowing the CD or something along those lines would be fine.

But then again, I'm still tired, so I'm not thinking straight. Hope that made sense. >_>

There is actually a problem with that. iTunes enables you to copy the files to your computer so you don't need it to play on your computer. iTunes, being one of the most used music players and made by Apple themselves, makes it a bit weird. It bothers me that it's illegal because of the effects and not the principles. If it's copying in small scales, such as borrowing CD's, it's all gravy. But if you open it up to the masses, poof, jail.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

If current artists would put out a quality album, then I wouldn't feel bad about torrenting them for free

 

[dragonslayer32]

First of all, I said that I had the letter, I didn't say it was addressed to me. Secondly, the fact that you can not understand something is not my fault.

Reading other peoples mail is a criminal offence. It's just wrong...

Also, it IS your fault. The view makes no sense. In the same way I don't understand the KKK's views, I don't understand your view. It seems... fucking weird. you disagree with people giving away their own stuff, and count it as theft. Sharing is caring is apparently completely lost on you.

I read that letter for my blind mother actually, which is far from criminal. Also, the view makes no sense to YOU, therefore, the only person to blame for not understanding my view is you and possibly your teachers. File sharing just feels wrong to me, I dont know why. How hard is that to understand? I know it is perfectly legal and legit, but it feels wrong, like how I imagine marrying your own cousin would feel, it's legal, but I am pretty sure that would feel weird too. Believe me, the only thing that has been lost is my time trying to explain this to you. I know I could have put it in simple terms to begin with and the majority of this argument is my fault, I should have made things clear and for that, I am sorry, but I have said it over and over again, it just feels weird to me, that is all you need to understand.

 

[Lacsapix]

In the Netherlands pirating files is ilegal, but you do not break any law. So whats stopping me from downloading beside my honor?
Score one for the Dutch goverment.

 

[zhoominator]

Hello fellow Escapists. My friends and I have this conversation often. What are your views on file-sharing software? Do you class it as theft?

Personally, I think it is theft and it is slowly destroying the music industry. So, what do you think?

Well, I do think it is bad but the music industry is the most used and arguably least appropriate example of why it is bad. (It certainly isn't theft though, not by any stetch of the imagination)

I think what is far more worrying is the increase of piracy in movies now. It is a big threat to independant cinemas and is partially why most of the crap shown in the big chains now are kiddie films (after all, very small kids tend to be account for only a small proportion of piracy). Why bother travelling potenially miles (our cinema is the only half decent one in about a 100 mile radius), waiting for ages in a queue to sit in a cinema when you can get something for pretty good quality online for free? 3D is an important innovation because it allows the cinemas to offer something the pirates can't but I fear it isn't enough.

The thing is with music is that you can listen to it over and over again. Most people watch a film once (maybe twice) and then may not watch it again in over a year. People who download movies illegally are far less likely to purchase the product than those who download music illegally.

I'm not too familiar with the deal on game piracy (I buy very few PC games), I'm not really sure how it affects the industry.

And potential income isn't really income, because chances are, the person who pirated something didn't intend on buying it anyway, even if he had no means of acquiring it for free.

No matter how many times I hear this argument, it never becomes any less convincing. If there is something you like to watch/listen to and you can either pay for it or get it free, most people would get it for free. If they liked it but had no option to get it free, they'd probably cave in and pay for it anyway. The people who buy everything they really like that they've downloaded is a smaller proportion than people like you seem to think. More people are what you might call opportunistic offenders, in that they wouldn't go to great lengths to obtain something without pay but if presented with it as easily as it is on the net, they would feel it too good to refuse.

I know plenty of people who pirate everything they watch and listen to. Are you seriously telling me that is they couldn't pirate these things they wouldn't own a single CD or DVD? With a straight face? Give me a break.



Edit:
On a slightly different note, while I certainly don't condone illegal downloading, I also don't think people who do shouldn't be put on probation just for doing so. I think it shows really poor form, especially since this problem doesn't occur when discussing other illegal things such as prostitution.

 

[Gindil]

I think what is far more worrying is the increase of piracy in movies now. It is a big threat to independant cinemas and is partially why most of the crap shown in the big chains now are kiddie films (after all, very small kids tend to be account for only a small proportion of piracy). Why bother travelling potenially miles (our cinema is the only half decent one in about a 100 mile radius), waiting for ages in a queue to sit in a cinema when you can get something for pretty good quality online for free? 3D is an important innovation because it allows the cinemas to offer something the pirates can't but I fear it isn't enough.

Not really. If you look at the industry, you look at them as Oligopolies [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly] They "control" every aspect of a movie release. The money they spend for licensing a film, maintaining copyrights, etc, goes on to perpetuate that system. The internet frees up that system to work a lot more efficiently. For example, not a lot of people have heard about Pioneer One [http://vodo.net/pioneerone] or Sita Sings the Blues [http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/] which are independent works that use the current filesharing technology (Yes, even Youtube is a filesharing technology)

This also causes a lockdown in movie theaters. Since most movie theaters have to pay X amount for getting a movie in their area, they have less money to diversify their offerings. This means higher prices for popcorn and soda than anywhere else.

What would actually innovate movie theaters is if they could pay less in those licensing deals. Perhaps then, more movie theaters could branch out and offer better snacks such as hamburgers or chicken. IIRC, there are a few indie theaters that do just that in both Singapore and the US, with older movies.

The thing is with music is that you can listen to it over and over again. Most people watch a film once (maybe twice) and then may not watch it again in over a year. People who download movies illegally are far less likely to purchase the product than those who download music illegally.

I'm not too familiar with the deal on game piracy (I buy very few PC games), I'm not really sure how it affects the industry.

And potential income isn't really income, because chances are, the person who pirated something didn't intend on buying it anyway, even if he had no means of acquiring it for free.

No matter how many times I hear this argument, it never becomes any less convincing. If there is something you like to watch/listen to and you can either pay for it or get it free, most people would get it for free. If they liked it but had no option to get it free, they'd probably cave in and pay for it anyway. The people who buy everything they really like that they've downloaded is a smaller proportion than people like you seem to think. More people are what you might call opportunistic offenders, in that they wouldn't go to great lengths to obtain something without pay but if presented with it as easily as it is on the net, they would feel it too good to refuse.

I know plenty of people who pirate everything they watch and listen to. Are you seriously telling me that is they couldn't pirate these things they wouldn't own a single CD or DVD? With a straight face? Give me a break.



Edit:
On a slightly different note, while I certainly don't condone illegal downloading, I also don't think people who do shouldn't be put on probation just for doing so. I think it shows really poor form, especially since this problem doesn't occur when discussing other illegal things such as prostitution.

This is a golden opportunity for gamers, publishers, and developers. What people forget about games is that they are meant to be interactive. If someone likes a game enough, they make their own. Look at what happened with Blizzard and Warcraft -> Now the guy that made Defense of the Ancients has become quite popular with his new offering [https://www.leagueoflegends.com/]

Plus, Youtube is ripe with mashups of new songs and new material created from copyrighted works. Granted, with some people, you won't get anyone that will ever buy a game again.

But here's where that golden opportunity comes in: give people a reason to buy your product. Not just a game with a strategy guide at a higher price (Blizzard), but why not give out a limited edition Starcraft II with a Marine helmet? $500 bucks? You think someone won't snatch that up?

Give people LAN play. It's the main reason why I won't be buying SC anytime soon. I like my friends but I am not going to have lag issues because the game has to phone home first.

Blizzard did good at building up its community. They could have done better with SCII, but it's not as bad as it could have been (even though I still hate the fact that setting up our own tournaments goes against the stupid EULA.)

 

[ANImaniac89]

in the past yes I have downloaded stuff off of file sharing site (music, games, anime, and some other "thing" O_O)
but now I don't so much now that I am wanting to get involved in animation and games design as a profession

 

[L4hlborg]

It's technically theft by law. Doesn't mean I morally object to it. It has far less effect on the music and film industry than they'd have you think. They still make enough to line their pockets with baby seal fur if they fancied it. What is killing the music and film industry is greedy proucers taking a much larger cut than they deserve.

People who claim to be pirating stuff for this reason are pretty much all hipocrytes, unless they are claiming that nobody deserves the money for making the product. I've never heard of anyone sending donations to bands after downloading a cd so that they could give them the share they deserve. As a matter of fact, they are just as greedy as the producers, wanting the full benefits of the product without having to pay for it too much.

 

[L4hlborg]

It's technically theft by law. Doesn't mean I morally object to it. It has far less effect on the music and film industry than they'd have you think. They still make enough to line their pockets with baby seal fur if they fancied it. What is killing the music and film industry is greedy proucers taking a much larger cut than they deserve.

People who claim to be pirating stuff for this reason are pretty much all hipocrytes, unless they are claiming that nobody deserves the money for making the product. I've never heard of anyone sending donations to bands after downloading a cd so that they could give them the share they deserve. As a matter of fact, they are just as greedy as the producers, wanting the full benefits of the product without having to pay for it too much.

Bullshit. You're saying songs are worth the £1.20+ each that they end up charging in CD's? Of which 90+% go's to the label and producer. The artists get their money from merchendising and ticket sales for gig's. Which I happily pay full price for. I personally think the only time you can justly argue paying for a song in the first place is if you are asking for the rights to use it in some medea or are buying a hard copy of it, like an LP. Which again I happily buy from record stores, simply because it's something nice to own. A simple digital format that I store on my harddrive should be free in my opinion. Otherwise you are essentially paying for the right to listen to something. You should be paying for the experience or something physical i.e. a gig or record.

I never said that songs are worth their price. I only said that if someone justifies downloading music by saying that record companies get too much money in the deal, maybe they should send the artist the ammount of money they deserve after downloading the track. After all, their point is ultimately that the record company is getting too much money and the artist is getting too little. Or they are just trying to think of an excuse for getting free music.

And isn't listening to music an experience? Atleast it is in my oppinion. I think that purchasing songs online should be cheaper, but not free. People have been working on the product, so they deserve some money from it.

 

[Gwarr]

It's theft if you do it in general . It's called JUSTICE if you do it versus Ubisoft/Activision

 

[Wintermoot]

just watch MTV cribs and tell me in the face that these people are poor I personaly sometimes by a CD out of convinience (that way I have all the songs on one disc instead of having to download them piece by piece)