On the morality of copyright.

[Kagim]

As much as you want to believe it, I am not that delusional, I know they're in it for the money. I don't side with them but with what their sites helps doing, I know most of them are scummy bastard, I certainly haven't been donating to them. I don't visit their sites very often, and never without an ad blocker.

I only think that because i keep trying to explain why i think they are scummy, and you seemed to keep defending the people running them.

That they're not the ones making the client pages is not an excuse, it's a fact. These sites only answer to certain needs, not all of whom you would condemn. Doing something in the "sole pursuit of gaining money" is not wrong in itself, it's really only how it is done, I get you there.
So you say that torrent sites are wrong because they make a lot of money out of people sharing? This may be a slippery slope for the ones gaining money, but not fore the ones sharing, if some torrent sites owners are perverted by money it doesn't stain the act of sharing itself, only it's reputation.

I never said anything bad against share alikes, as said i prefer that model and it's how I am going to try and get my name out there once my first real novel is finished rather then my tiny short stories. However i will be boasting myself from my own site, and risking a bit of capital by buying ad space on sites i think would be a good investment.

However i was only explaining why i think they are scummy and why i don't support them, nothing else.

Shadier sites who make you pay for faster downloads or put up fake clients when you make a search get a lot less popular fast.
Because what is being shared is not their doing ? Well of course what's shared is not their doing, these sites exist only as an easy way for someone to find a client. Clients aside the torrent streams have nothing to do with the "torrent" sites themselves.

As said, i don;t like the people running them, thus don't go to them myself because i don't like the operation they are running. I am talking about my preference here.

You despise them for getting rich easily, so you want a piece of the cake using what is shared as a convenient excuse, ahem.

I despise them for getting rich off sitting on there ass while everyone else works. It's the same way i would feel about someone profiting off, say, the salvation armies efforts.

Say what you want about the publishers, but they have to hand over a chunk of change before they go ahead with what they do.

Nevertheless I agree they ough to facilitate donating to the artists too, you'd waste less time trying to make that happen rather than bitching about what can't be changed.

I'm not bitching, i'm just saying why i hate them. I think the people who own and profit from advertisements on torrent sites are scum. End of list, i don't waste much time thinking about it. In the end they won't effect me in any shape.

Even if millions were not using torrent sites anymore there would be tens of millions left who just don't care, I can do it but that won't solve the problem.

I realize many people don't care. That's why i said the answer is obvious. Not supporting something is the best way to make people change.

However to many people just don't care.

There is always a site somewhere to allow tasteless things to be downloaded, anyway they have report systems for their members, the ones who spend the rest of the time sharing more tastefull things.

You still miss my meaning. It's very easy for them to make sure nothing tasteless is on there, however unless it can get them in shit, Child Porn is the point where the CIA gets involved and criminal charges can be filed, they don't care because it could effect there profits.

By encouraging creation through mutual gain they function differently, and so do not fullfill the same needs. Here This is exactly what you are talking about. No matter how you put it, right-click save of every pages of a web comic that doesn't let you download it all in one bulk can only be time consuming. The ones downloading that kind of things are probably regulars of these sites anyway.
Technically torrent sites are just as free for the users, and such clients description are usually accompagned by a link to the authors sites. So yes, torrent sites are a good way to inflate the numbers of authors sites, I found many interesting sites I still go to instead that way.

Once more, people who find stuff on a torrent site are likely only finding it because they were looking for it.

The possibility someones link will be clicked, completely at random or out of curiosity, is negligible.

Once more i simply find it a flimsy defense. They don't keep them to inflate numbers, its just a draw. One more thing that might pull someone into making them cash.

One more, i just don't support them, and choose agaisnt going to them, and rather support sites that encourage growth and development of artistic creativity like the ones, and likely more, i have mentioned.

I'm not screaming for the death of torrent sites, crooks will be crooks and someone will always be looking to cash in on others, though don;t get me wrong if they ever did vanish i would crack a smile at least. I still fully intend to launch my own site with my wife once we get both of our projects going. I don't expect to be rolling in the money, but twenty extra bucks made from something both of us enjoy is gold.

It's larger and the network is tighter, but it's exactly the same situation, only with a greater scale.

A greater scale leaves more room for variables.

A tighter network leaves less room for observations.

"principles of leather tanning" was just meant for anyone more or less interested in leather tanning. An educative book for amateurs about somewhat arcane knowledge can only get that profitable in a society where general knowledge has spread wide. Comparing it to Frankeinstein may have been a bad move from the author of this article however, I wish I could find more data on that time period and see what relevant comparisons there could be.

While you might not consider it, "for dummies" books are probably one of the largest collections and highest selling book series out there, even with copyright.

Non fiction books general outsell fiction books. I know that might be hard to believe judging from what you said but fiction books only appeal to certain circles.

Jim might like dragons, and George might like aliens, but when either of them get a leaky faucet a book on plumbing is always cheaper then a plumber.

I didn't read anywhere in the article anywhere where it said it was only meant for people that just happened to be curious about tanning. It sounds more like a book people would be buying trying to start a business, which, once again, outsell most fiction books.

I don't think everyone is that superficial about trinkets, a somewhat fancy box is enough for me. The Fallout3 special edition was still ordered a lot around the world. Given the price, that's quite an earning for the publisher.

No not everyone, but from my time people watching at the mall for a psych paper a lot of people really are that superficial.

Not surveys then. Observations can still be made to convince someone who knows his stuff. After all that's how scientists know how the insides of the sun looks like, more or less.
Here is something that is not an assumption:
-Spore sold more copies than most games before it.
-it was the most "pirated game of it's time"

-It was also one of the most anticipated game of its time, made by the same creators of simcity and the sims, which have avid and fanatical fans.
-It was delayed many, many times and pumped and hyped to it's very brim, promising to be the most indepth boundry breaking game ever made.
-It's creature creator was released as a stand alone the millions of people grabbed and basically spent the weeks drooling making endless creations.

Those, as well, are factors that can/could/do contribute to its popularity. Essentially people thought it was Jesus pressed into a dvd.

It was a false prophet though, but that's my opinion of it.

That is an observation, now the question that goes with it :
Would it have sold more, or less, had there not be torrent sites ?
Yes, we cannot know, that is where the scientific experiment thing should come in. Setting up an experimental study is very complex, but I will be looking into that, at least for curiosity's sake. Because I just can't be satisfied with "maybe, maybe not"

By observing, bare in mind i meant literally observing people who say this or that. Which would entail invasion of privacy. While scientists can be very crafty on how they go about things, invasion of privacy is hard to get around, though one guy did for a bathroom experiment... though i think he got fined once he released the report.

 

[incal11]

I despise them for getting rich off sitting on there ass while everyone else works. It's the same way i would feel about someone profiting off, say, the salvation armies efforts.

So, it's more of an issue with the ones maintaining torrent sites than an issue with the morality of sharing. Ok, that's clear.

I realize many people don't care. That's why i said the answer is obvious. Not supporting something is the best way to make people change.

Perhaps if a torrent site could be convinced to officially help the CC I could go out of my way to only ever use that site for sharing.

It's very easy for them to make sure nothing tasteless is on there...

A report system is more than enough to stop that kind of things, it's you who miss the point when you feel you are entitled to ask for a client page to be removed. Don't go saying that's not what you are talking about "once again" we've been arguing long enough for me to know exactly what underlines your words.
The sharing will continue even if the client pages are taken off. The client page is really not about your work, it's a place to allow people to share your work. Take it away and it will end up somewhere else. Considering that sharing is like a natural reflex it's, ironically, like hoping to stop a river stream just by telling it to do so.
From the twisted state our society's culture is in, copyright holders on one side "pirates" on the other, maybe it's time to conclude that some of your concepts of how things should be are wrong. Then learn to go with it instead, but from what you said perhaps that's already what you're doing.

people who find stuff on a torrent site are likely only finding it because they were looking for it.

True I only looked for stuff I heard good things about, I was thinking about those old games and movies I remembered for example, whose authors names and websites where in the client descriptions when I looked for them. That way if someone asks me what old games and movies are worth it I'll likely give the adress of the author's site.
Then if the ones I advised don't have enough spare cash to buy it full price they will torrent it, and, if they liked it, repeat what I did. I understand how that can look flimsy, but that's really how it is.

A greater scale leaves more room for variables.
A tighter network leaves less room for observations.

It's still the exact same situation overall, the variables are ultimately futile details, and a tighter network allows for the circulation of more informations on the contrary. People in last century's Germany never had the chance to realise how lucky they were.

It sounds more like a book people would be buying trying to start a business, which, once again, outsell most fiction books.

I know non-fiction sells more, the point is it sold that well in a society without copyright, compared to a moderately popular fiction in a country with copyright that still proves the german authors earned more and anyway did not need copyrights.

Those, as well, are factors that can/could/do contribute to its popularity. Essentially people thought it was Jesus pressed into a dvd.

I could give examples of both popular and less known indie games who still do very well despite being on the torrents, each have their own factors of course, but like you said we can't conclude anything beyond that popularity and amount of sharing appears to be linked.

By observing, bare in mind i meant literally observing people who say this or that. Which would entail invasion of privacy.

I Shouldn't have said observations, but meaningfull deductions provable by logic. That's how scientists know how the insides of the sun looks like, and it would be incredibly arrogant to go and tell them we just can't know because we can't go inside the sun to see.
Like for any large scale phenomenon there just has to be ways to make those deductions without invading someone's privacy.

 

[Kagim]

I know non-fiction sells more, the point is it sold that well in a society without copyright, compared to a moderately popular fiction in a country with copyright that still proves the german authors earned more and anyway did not need copyrights.

No, it proved that non fiction sells more then a disliked fiction novel that did not, and likely still is not, popular.

I'm just saying the example is, well, horribly biased. They choose the absolute worst example possible to try and justify the claim. It simply calls in to question the integrity of the article. Either the writer has a biased, or knows shit all about writing.

I could give examples of both popular and less known indie games who still do very well despite being on the torrents, each have their own factors of course, but like you said we can't conclude anything beyond that popularity and amount of sharing appears to be linked.

There is always more variables then you see, is what I am trying to say. Bias blinds you.

If you want to find some semblance of truth you have to drop any bias you have. Which ultimately is difficult.

I Shouldn't have said observations, but meaningfull deductions provable by logic. That's how scientists know how the insides of the sun looks like, and it would be incredibly arrogant to go and tell them we just can't know because we can't go inside the sun to see.

Actually, just on an aside, scientists don't know, it's a theory. To say they are wrong is arrogant, but no more arrogant then a scientist proclaiming it as fact.

What you will find is that most of science is made of theories, not that it's a bad thing, it actually is the main reason why science constantly changes and evolves.

Hell, gravity is still a theory.

The moment you conclude something as fact is when information stagnates. You might make observations and theorize that torrents really do help artists, but trying to proclaim it as anything but a theory is arrogant.

Like for any large scale phenomenon there just has to be ways to make those deductions without invading someone's privacy.

Not really. Humans lie, impulsively. Just as you say people share people lie. It's actually one of the primary signs of intelligence and a huge step in the maturation of a child. To some, it's actually seen as a sign of low intelligence if children never learn to lie because it means they are not developing properly to understand the concept of lying.

While this might seem like a cop out answer, it's the truth, only unadulterated, unknown observations of living creatures, especially humans, can really prove anything. As soon as a average intelligence human realizes eyes are on them they change who they are. They switch from true nature to public you.

Once more, i am sure that might be hard to swallow, and going in depth even more would probably be boring, however from my time people watching this is a very true fact.

Lying is a powerful instinct in humans to.

And while i know how it looks saying this right after explaining why humans lie, I don't have much time to respond to this any more. There are other things in my life going on and i don't really need to be arguing about things like this right now. Much more important things have arisen.

If you wish to see this as a victory of some sort then god bless, however i won't really have time to respond, and likely won't. So think of it as you want. I'm tired.

 

[incal11]

I'm just saying the example is, well, horribly biased. They choose the absolute worst example possible to try and justify the claim. It simply calls in to question the integrity of the article. Either the writer has a biased, or knows shit all about writing.

That is why I wanted to find more info on that time period, and it's easier said than done. Right down to it, it's still an interesting report of how things worked in a society without copyrights. Dismissing it all just because of one example is a little too convenient.

If you want to find some semblance of truth you have to drop any bias you have. Which ultimately is difficult.

The same goes for you. There would be ways to tell whose bias is the worst, but I guess you're not interested, too bad.

The moment you conclude something as fact is when information stagnates. You might make observations and theorize that torrents really do help artists, but trying to proclaim it as anything but a theory is arrogant.

At this point I was not talking about facts. I was just saying a theory with a very high likelyhood, high enough to make even you think about it, would do.

Lying is a powerful instinct in humans to.

A cop out answer is not a good answer, I hope you realise that. You fixated on surveys and how people lie to them.
When I was trying to explain there are ways to observe the torrent streams and how well the publishers and artists do in relation to whatever relevant factors there may be. Without invading anyone's privacy or doing surveys.