Ghostkai said:
crudus said:
infinity_turtles said:
I file that under ease of access, and most people don't read or play games multiple times, making the point relatively insignificant to the scheme of things. And of course you can keep checking out the same book.
You missed the point entirely. With libraries there are the same number of books(again, assuming the library doesn't buy more). With torrents the source is just copied thus a potential infinite copies. Unless you own the copyrights[footnote]Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. (wikipedia)[/footnote] then distributing and/or copying a book or a file is illegal.
Well said, couldn't agree more, there is no middle ground. No grey area. I always notice that the strongest advocates of piracy seem to be the youngsters (under 18 generally, without any disposible income).
And the insane arguments along the lines of "well, i can't afford it, therefore it's justified" simply baffle me.
"Oh, I can't afford that car, I'll just steal it."
Look,I'd download that car if I could!But yes,they are being compensated for
one game.Is that actually any different from a library buying five copies of a Stephen King book,and then giving it out to
one thousand people?Sure,King is being paid for those five books,so that covers the first five people to rent the book.But what happens after those five people return their books?King makes no money off of the next nine hundred and ninety five people who rent those copies of his book.
In the same manner,a customer will go out and buy Super Mario Galaxy 2.They will then have paid for
one copy,the money of which will eventually find it's way back to the games company,yes?Right,but say he uploads it to a torrent site.And then nine hundred and ninety nine people download that torrent.Is it any different from the library giving out free copies of King's latest novel,after those first five people?No,as neither makes any money after the initial purchase.
Now,yes,there is the issue of the fact that King will have given his consent for the library to rent out his latest works,but what if those five copies aren't bought from the right channels?What if they are donated?In fact,what if the librarian just walks into Waterstones,picks up five copies,and puts them into the library.King has not given his consent to that library to rent his works.And really,do you think they phone up every author,even when they are buying the books,and ask politely if they can please rent out their latest works?No,they will buy it from a bookshop.
Now,to give a spin on this that I haven't seen on this thread yet,think back to when you were in school.For some of you,this may be a little hard,but stay with me folks.You know those worksheets you would be handed out by your teachers from time to time?You know,the ones that came from their textbooks,or things they had had years ago,or were given by a previous teacher?You know the kind,they had those diagrams you always drew across.They were in black and white.Wait,what was that?Black and white?But,they came from a textbook.Why don't they have colour?
That's because they have been photocopied.In other words,someone bought
one copy of the textbook,and then made
many,many copies of the pages of that textbook.And they will do this for many years.You are now aware that you have been told to support piracy all your life.How does that feel?
But seriously,someone here said piracy was akin to buying a book,making lots of copies,and handing it out to their friends.Well,how is this any different from photocopying the latest Spider-Man and uploading it?It isn't.Why aren't our schools being attacked by the entertainment industry?Because they know if they even tried it,the government would put them in their place.
And it isn't limited to text books.In our A level History class at my old school,we would studying Nazi Germany,Hitler's rise to power,and his foreign policies.What film did we watch at least once in that year?Downfall,the film documenting Hitler's last few days in his Berlin Bunker.Now,was my class the first class to watch that DVD in that class?No.Will it be the last?Hell no.People will use any excuse to get out of work,especially when it involves Hitler shouting about his Xbox Live account being canceled.Or something.
Now,after watching that film,how many of us do you think went out and bought the DVD?We watched it once,and the company was paid for
one copy.The one my teacher personally bought for herself.But then,she showed it to all of us.And I doubt many of us bought our own copy.In my year alone there were maybe twenty guys doing A level History.So that is twenty one people-including my teacher-watching this film.Twenty of us didn't pay for a copy.Is this not the same as torrenting?Twenty people paid nothing to watch a film.Twenty people did not buy their own copy.
And that will continue as long as that teacher has that DVD.If she teachers for another forty years,how many students will then have watched that film,free of charge?Not nearly as many as have downloaded that film to be sure.But still a considerable number.And that's assuming she only shows it to her History class.And yet,the entertainment industry stays away from our schools.Amazing that.
Oh,and as a final note,before I leave,fast forward from school until you are in University.Now,I don't know what any of your courses were like,but at my Computer Science course,the professor put all their notes online for us.Every single note they had used in their lecture.Obviously,the things they had said weren't there,but still.That was there,free of charge,assuming you don't count the cost to actually be at university of course,and we could do whatever with it,aside from selling it.We could print it out in the university library,so money would go back into the university with that,but some people wouldn't print them out-'Why would I?They're online'-or they would do it online.We could take our professors intellectual property,and make as many copies of it as we liked.Potentially,we could plaster the entire planet with the notes,and we would be obeying copyright laws.But,the professors didn't care.They let us.So it's not quite the same,but still.They didn't get paid for their intellectual property.
So,I lied,but this one is quick.Some people torrent things that aren't available in their own country.Someone pointed out that some shows come out overseas before they do in Britain.What about those films that don't come out over here at all,and are so old,it's almost impossible to find a copy?I torrented a copy of a film based on my favourite childhood novel,The Brothers Lionheart.I intend to buy my own copy,but it came out in Sweden,and only was released in Swedish,so it is a little hard to find over here.Just saying.
So we disagree fundamentally about whether permission matter in how the product is used? What if all gun manufacturers said "I only give permission to nazis to use my product, as that supports my interests"? I know of course this is more about what scale we believe permission matters at, but I do want to calrify whether you subscribe to that belief fully.
