Why do people care about piracy?

[Something Amyss]

The title of this thread is incredibly misleading. Why do people care about piracy? Because it's theft,

Totally false.

against the law

True, at least.

and usually incredibly damaging to what industry is being stolen from.

[citation needed]


You covered the basics as given out by the recording industry without regard for fact or evidence, nothing more.

Well the fine in punitive. Because he did wrong he was fined as a punishment. That's why I'm assuming the fine is so high.

They argued the lower number of a tenth the ruling was unacceptable because they needed to recoup the cost of their little war on piracy and won on those grounds. It's in the original article. That's not what punitive damages are.

 

[Twilight_guy]

People care about piracy because potentially pirates can cause the income of an individual or company that makes a product fall and impeded or destroy the company as a result. For example if company X makes your favorite games and somehow for some reason everyone pirates the game then they'd be out the money that was used to make the game and this financial disaster could destroy them thus ensuring they never make another game again and thus you don't get anymore of your favorite games. Now all the argument and ire this subject gets may or may not be deserved but it must be monitored and debated to ensure that it doesn't suddenly becomes unchecked and cause a legitimate melt-down.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Finally, if you were an artist, wouldn't you just be happy that people are enjoying your work? I mean, being compensated for your work is definitely nice, but isn't REAL art about the message and enjoyment of the viewers, not the money?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

 

[Sethzard]

I think that it's silly to charge pirates because the band makes most of their money from their tours anyway. Some bands have seen that giving their albums away for free does better for them than selling their CDs. You can't pirate a concert or the live experience.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I think that it's silly to charge pirates because the band makes most of their money from their tours anyway. Some bands have seen that giving their albums away for free does better for them than selling their CDs. You can't pirate a concert or the live experience.

What about people who pirate films or games?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This is an absurd mindset that damages many artists trying to make a living off their work, and is one of the many reasons artists as a whole are undervalued and exploited.

No, artists are undervauled and exploited because there's no tangible "need" for artists.

No one's survival is dependant on the products of artists, and thus art will ALWAYS be valued less than things like food, housing and clothing. Art is just a luxury, and a luxury whose value shifts greatly dependant on where you are and which lack any kind of standard to it's actual value (which would most likely be rated pretty low).

There are simply too many artists in the world and too little tangible and ongoing need for the art that they produce.

I am an artist, and while I love what I do, I have the right to make a living off my profession the same as any other field.

No, no you don't. That's like saying: "im a stoneclub-maker and I have a right to make a living off my profession making stoneclubs, despite the fact that stoneclubs pretty much went out of use aftwer the stone age".

You only have a right to make a living off of a certain profession if society is actually wlling to pay/compensate you enough for it. And this most likely happens if your profession is producing something which there is a tangible and ongoing NEED for on the market.

No one really NEEDS your art. Some people might WANT your art, but wanting and needing is not the same thing. And there are probably a lot of people who'd like your art, but never find i valuable enough to actually pay for it.

BECAUSE art isn't something integral to human survival.

You wouldn't suggest that doctors should not be compensated, as they're really only here to help other people and that should be reward enough for their work.

It's not the same. People in general recognize a much bigger need for doctors than they do for artists. If no doctors were around a lot more people would DIE (i.e huge threat to human survival). If no artists were around... Well, then there wouldn't be as much art (not a threat to human survival at all).

Face it, you might love creating art (I love it too, and I create art during my spare time), but your art will never be truly needed, and that's why you have to accept that you DON'T have a "right" to earn a living solely from making art.

If you're lucky and talented enough you might recieve the PRIVILIGE of being able to earning a living through making art. But far from all artists attain that privilige.

So I'll say to you what I've said to all other artists who delude themselves into thinking that they have some sort of godgiven right to earn a living through their art: get a real job and dabble in art on your spare time... You know, like MOST artists on this planet have to do.

 

[Sethzard]

I think that it's silly to charge pirates because the band makes most of their money from their tours anyway. Some bands have seen that giving their albums away for free does better for them than selling their CDs. You can't pirate a concert or the live experience.

What about people who pirate films or games?

There isn't really a good reason for that so they are bad.

 

[Chemical Alia]

This is an absurd mindset that damages many artists trying to make a living off their work, and is one of the many reasons artists as a whole are undervalued and exploited.

No, artists are undervauled and exploited because there's no tangible "need" for artists.

No one's survival is dependant on the products of artists, and thus art will ALWAYS be valued less than things like food, housing and clothing. Art is just a luxury, and a luxury whose value shifts greatly dependant on where you are and which lack any kind of standard to it's actual value (which would most likely be rated pretty low).

There are simply too many artists in the world and too little tangible and ongoing need for the art that they produce.

I am an artist, and while I love what I do, I have the right to make a living off my profession the same as any other field.

No, no you don't. That's like saying: "im a stoneclub-maker and I have a right to make a living off my profession making stoneclubs, despite the fact that stoneclubs pretty much went out of use aftwer the stone age".

You only have a right to make a living off of a certain profession if society is actually wlling to pay/compensate you enough for it. And this most likely happens if your profession is producing something which there is a tangible and ongoing NEED for on the market.

No one really NEEDS your art. Some people might WANT your art, but wanting and needing is not the same thing. And there are probably a lot of people who'd like your art, but never find i valuable enough to actually pay for it.

BECAUSE art isn't something integral to human survival.

You wouldn't suggest that doctors should not be compensated, as they're really only here to help other people and that should be reward enough for their work.

It's not the same. People in general recognize a much bigger need for doctors than they do for artists. If no doctors were around a lot more people would DIE (i.e huge threat to human survival). If no artists were around... Well, then there wouldn't be as much art (not a threat to human survival at all).

Face it, you might love creating art (I love it too, and I create art during my spare time), but your art will never be truly needed, and that's why you have to accept that you DON'T have a "right" to earn a living solely from making art.

If you're lucky and talented enough you might recieve the PRIVILIGE of being able to earning a living through making art. But far from all artists attain that privilige.

So I'll say to you what I've said to all other artists who delude themselves into thinking that they have some sort of godgiven right to earn a living through their art: get a real job and dabble in art on your spare time... You know, like MOST artists on this planet have to do.

Sounds like somebody hates their job, lol. I don't recall at any point implying that every crappy artist in the world should be granted a career in art. And when it comes to compensation, what is "necessary for human survival" is completely irrelevant. Doctors do not require compensation to treat patients any more than artists or game developers need money to continue their work. No one is deserving of a job doing anything, regardless of how talented they are, how many degrees they are, or how important their work is.

All I take issue with is the notion that a "real artist" (whatever that is) should be doing their work for pure charity to benefit society or some other bullshit. Artists are skilled and specialized professionals, and there are are industries that require them. It's no different than any other profession.

A career in art is one of the most difficult career paths to achieve, but with proper motivation and skills, even you could probably do it.

 

[kebab4you]

Well I'm not an artist or a developer of any kind but I do think even they need food,clothing and a house to live in.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

A career in art is one of the most difficult career paths to achieve, but with proper motivation and skills, even you could probably do it.

No, that's just the thing: you couldn't. It doesn't matter what skills and motivation you have. When it comes to art, influential contacts are pretty much the only thing that will determine if you'll be successful enough to earn a living.

This is why we have poor street-performers lightyears away from ever landing a professional gig that sometimes are even superior in terms of skill and motivation to even the most famous and successful musicians, painters and actors.

It's not about the skill or the motivation, all that truly matters is knowing or getting into contact with the "right people" and impressing them enough. But most artists never get that chance, hence why they're stuck at the "hobbyist" level, sometimes for their entire lives.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I think that it's silly to charge pirates because the band makes most of their money from their tours anyway. Some bands have seen that giving their albums away for free does better for them than selling their CDs. You can't pirate a concert or the live experience.

What about people who pirate films or games?

There isn't really a good reason for that so they are bad.

There isn't really a good reason to pirate music either. At the end of the day, people are still getting something for free that they should be paying for. I don't think you can differentiate between pirating based on what it is being pirated, I see it as an all or nothing thing. Either all pirating is wrong, or all is acceptable.

 

[imnot]

Piracy annoys me, how is it any diffrent from stealing? Now show the creators some respect you goddam kids!

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I wouldn't expect the people who work at Subway to make me a sandwich for free just to make me happy. Really, this is no different. If you think otherwise, well, you're being naive. I would be amazed if people had managed to truly convince themselves that it's morally ok, and aren't just kidding themselves so they feel better about getting something for nothing.

 

[sharpshooter188]

That is the pure form yes, but unfortunately, in America, we are greedy s**ts and will make things up and distort truths to our ends. There is no loss. There was only lost potential for gain. Which wasn't guaranteed in the first place. If I download a song that doesn't guarantee the fact that I'm going to buy the album.


I support piracy through and through. I never actually have pirated anything on the account of I'm simply too impatient to download ANYTHING in the gigabyte realm. Stealing something comes from the account of something that was already there is now gone. This is not the case with piracy.


It's file sharing. The RIAA and MPAA get the short end of the stick sometimes and that is just how it is. Why is it alright when something bad happens to a person and they are forced to just suck it up? It's not.. but it is life. File sharing is just a bad part of life that the RIAA and MPAA are going to have to get used to.

 

[renegade7]

Finally, if you were an artist, wouldn't you just be happy that people are enjoying your work? I mean, being compensated for your work is definitely nice, but isn't REAL art about the message and enjoyment of the viewers, not the money?

This is an absurd mindset that damages many artists trying to make a living off their work, and is one of the many reasons artists as a whole are undervalued and exploited.

I am an artist, and while I love what I do, I have the right to make a living off my profession the same as any other field. You wouldn't suggest that doctors should not be compensated, as they're really only here to help other people and that should be reward enough for their work.

But does a doctor get to ruin a person's (really a whole family, which may not even have been involved) entire life if somebody gives them first aid instead of driving them to the hospital? That would prevent the doctor from making money.

 

[Duskflamer]

Yes but using morality as an argument is rather retarded and has no valid point to it
and if you seriously are forming opinions about this then you need to rethink

It absolutely blows my mind how stupid people can be on the internet. Now, I don't want to impose, because you're probably just a kid, and you didn't think about what you said before you pressed "post", but consider, for a moment, that all of ethics and moral philosophy is based on morality as an argument.

Your very right to express your wrong and idiotic opinion is guaranteed to you because of morality. You insult those who campaigned to give you the right to free speech by calling them retards. These were men of moral character and ethics, and made decisions based on what they thought was right. By your definition: retards.

Every philosopher from Gandhi to Martin Luther King, to Confucias, to Thomas Aquinas, to Gottfried Leibniz, to Epicurus, to Immanual Kant, to Plato and Aristotle. All of them are retards, apparently.

As my Philosophy teacher has been drilling into me "It's perfectly fine to argue from morality. It is not fine to argue solely from morality." I may be being charitable here, but I think Monxerot was trying to say "If you're forming opinions about this solely from a moral perspective, you're being retarded," and while I can't speak for him I think my philosophy teacher would agree with the spirit of that.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Cause they're all 18th century British navel officers stationed in the Caribbean. They don't like people sailing around doing what they want. They want everyone to follow their stringent guidelines, just like in the navy. And stealing a ship or it's cargo and hurting a business will hurt the kings tax revenue.

Really though. You post great profit numbers and claim piracy is robbing you of millions upon millions. It's Gamestop'esc stores thats stealing their money big time deal with them. Damn 18th century British navel officers.

 

[JustOrdinary]

Piracy DOES affect the various entertainment industries because it forces local publishing companies / production studios to compete with essentially FREE, technologically SUPERIOR content from over the international waters.

The shockwaves of this wouldn't be felt in say, the USA, because they have more than enough established developers/production teams already to compete with each other and therefore push whatever boundaries are necessary to gain more consumers to purchase their movie/game. Or they could just go with what sells at that period of time, i.e the safe route.

The people that ARE affected by this are the ones without the starting capital. The ones reliant on inferior, subpar technologies and game engines. Your indie developers, the ones who go on to eventually produce new studios/companies are the ones who suffer. The ones that start out as small, local teams in a rented apartment someplace in the suburbs. Y'know, the ones that grow into small companies and then compete internationally.

A third-world country where Piracy is legal cripples the entertainment industry entirely because they're competing with films and games completely out of their league. Would you honestly want to buy a game that still looks graphically like Deus Ex, or would you rather opt for a free version of the latest Modern Warfare?

And y'know, some would, if only to support the budding designers/filmmakers, but not the majority of people who'd rather not waste their income on an inferior product.


So yes, piracy does affect people. All it takes is one self-deluded altruist to erase potential job opportunities the world over. For every game designer or filmmaker that doesn't exist, there's another creative soul wasting his talent away in some monotonously dreary clerical job someplace.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I wouldn't expect the people who work at Subway to make me a sandwich for free just to make me happy.

But you can bet your ass that if it was possible to copy a sandwich an infinite amount of times, and thusly even be able to feed all the starving people in the world and all for the price of what? A few seconds usage of electricity. Then people would do it. And people should do it to, and no one would really care if that was bad for Subway's business except for perhaps Subway.

Really, this is no different. If you think otherwise, well, you're being naive. I would be amazed if people had managed to truly convince themselves that it's morally ok, and aren't just kidding themselves so they feel better about getting something for nothing.

Yeah that's some impressive argumentation skill you show off there. Accusing your intellectual opponents of simply being naive and fooling themselves without really saying why. Give the man/woman a hand people!

*facepalm*