Why do people care about piracy?

[TheRightToArmBears]

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*

*sigh* People have great manners on the internet.

I bolded the important bit. You expect an artist to feel just fine and dandy with people enjoying their work for free? Are you that ungrateful? You can't live off of happiness and good will, it makes no sense to consider yourself a fan of an artist and then just tell them to take a hike when they want money for their work.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

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*

Apparently the forum ate my post, so in case it turns up, I'll just say this:

Do you not agree that artists deserve the money for their work? Isn't pretty two-faced to be a fan of someone's art but then refuse to pay for it? They can't live on making people happy.

Do I really need explain why I think piracy is morally wrong? Seriously? You honestly think it's A-ok to not pay people for their work?

EDIT: apparently the other post has been regurgitated. Sorry for the double post.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Except they don't compete. How can it be damaging by forcing them to compete when they don't do what they're "forced" 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.

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.

The thing is that they will give something back to the artist if they go and see their concerts. It's still not acceptable but at least they're giving something to the artist. A lot of the time pirating acts like a full demo.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Do you not agree that artists deserve the money for their work?

Yes I do, as long as that work is actual work and not sitting around playing a musical instrument or painting a painting that no one really needs.

Tell me this: why do artists "deserve" to waste time at completely meaningless pursuits and actually earn a living through that while being supported by the vast majority of people who actually have REAL jobs? That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Isn't pretty two-faced to be a fan of someone's art but then refuse to pay for it? They can't live on making people happy.

I disagee with the notion that artists SHOULD be able to make a living off of artistry, so there you go.

I consider that ability to be a PRIVILIGE, not a "right". And that privilige only comes through a viable businessmodel (like live performances and events that you can't easily copy and distribute yourself)

Do I really need explain why I think piracy is morally wrong? Seriously? You honestly think it's A-ok to not pay people for their work?

Yes I think piracy is perfectly A-ok, and that it is a great technological achievement of humanity.

But I think it will lead to certain changes in the market that certain corporations won't like, but that is of little concern since according to capitalistic ideals, the corporations are supposed to be the servants of the consumers and not the other way around. And an obsolete servant doesn't deserve to get fed unless it adapts and changes itself so that it actually becomes useful again.

 

[Chemical Alia]

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.

Nice cop-out. Of course you can't just draw Sonic fanart all day or course through art school with no thoughts towards the application of your skills to an actual career, and expect a job to fall into your lap. It's about making the right choices and following a feasible path. If you do enough research and build a solid portfolio to show off marketable skills (street performing usually does not count), you can successfully pursue art.

And yes, networking is important. If you do work that helps people get to know you or contribute to your community, you will develop a network of contacts over time. Just e-mailing people with questions about their job helps show that you're interested. Few people have the luxury of important connections from the start, but to say it's impossible to make contacts is a lame excuse. Talk to any artist in my industry and see if they tell you that having connections is the only way to get a job or is a more important factor than skill. Ask them how hard they had to work and sacrifice to get that job, and if it's worth it.

It sounds like you've made a lot of excuses like these. If it's always someone else's fault and the system is totally against you, you don't have to feel as bad when you don't try.

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.

Huh? I don't even get what you're asking.

Tell me this: why do artists "deserve" to waste time at completely meaningless pursuits and actually earn a living through that while being supported by the vast majority of people who actually have REAL jobs? That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Supporting me? Am I on welfare or something? It sounds like you're simply jealous that other people can make money doing something that they enjoy.

 

[renegade7]

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.

Nice cop-out. Of course you can't just draw Sonic fanart all day or course through art school with no thoughts towards the application of your skills to an actual career, and expect a job to fall into your lap. It's about making the right choices and following a feasible path. If you do enough research and build a solid portfolio to show off marketable skills (street performing usually does not count), you can successfully pursue art.

And yes, networking is important. If you do work that helps people get to know you or contribute to your community, you will develop a network of contacts over time. Just e-mailing people with questions about their job helps show that you're interested. Few people have the luxury of important connections from the start, but to say it's impossible to make contacts is a lame excuse. Talk to any artist in my industry and see if they tell you that having connections is the only way to get a job or is a more important factor than skill. Ask them how hard they had to work and sacrifice to get that job, and if it's worth it.

It sounds like you've made a lot of excuses like these. If it's always someone else's fault and the system is totally against you, you don't have to feel as bad when you don't try.

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.

Huh? I don't even get what you're asking.

Piracy is a crime because it deprives the artists/creators/corporations of money. They are allowed to sue over lost POTENTIAL profits. Thus, if a corporate run hospital loses a potential patient because someone performed first aid and treated his or her self (free) instead of going to the hospital (costly) then should they also be allowed to sue over 'lost' profits?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Do you not agree that artists deserve the money for their work?

Yes I do, as long as that work is actual work and not sitting around playing a musical instrument or painting a painting that no one really needs.

Tell me this: why do artists "deserve" to waste time at completely meaningless pursuits and actually earn a living through that while being supported by the vast majority of people who actually have REAL jobs? That doesn't seem very fair to me.

Isn't pretty two-faced to be a fan of someone's art but then refuse to pay for it? They can't live on making people happy.

I disagee with the notion that artists SHOULD be able to make a living off of artistry, so there you go.

I consider that ability to be a PRIVILIGE, not a "right". And that privilige only comes through a viable businessmodel (like live performances and events that you can't easily copy and distribute yourself)

Do I really need explain why I think piracy is morally wrong? Seriously? You honestly think it's A-ok to not pay people for their work?

Yes I think piracy is perfectly A-ok, and that it is a great technological achievement of humanity.

But I think it will lead to certain changes in the market that certain corporations won't like, but that is of little concern since according to capitalistic ideals, the corporations are supposed to be the servants of the consumers and not the other way around. And an obsolete servant doesn't deserve to get fed unless it adapts and changes itself so that it actually becomes useful again.

I don't understand how you have ignored the basic concept of paying for things that you want. If you don't want it, don't pay. Listening to music is a privilege not a right, more so than making a living through your art. I also don't understand why you don't think making money from your creativity is a bad thing. Being in a band is not easy, at least until you 'make it big'. In fact, it's incredibly hard work. Writing good music is not easy. It's just as much a profession as any other. Demanding that artists become your ***** because you don't think you should pay strikes me as ungrateful.

 

[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.

The thing is that they will give something back to the artist if they go and see their concerts. It's still not acceptable but at least they're giving something to the artist. A lot of the time pirating acts like a full demo.

So what if people who pirate films or games go out and buy something else that that company has developed? And what if people don't go to the live shows? Surely they should have to pay for both the initial CD and the show? I don't think you can say it's ok as long as they give something else in another area.

 

[Dryy]

Im an artist myself...

I wanna see this art that has you all sour grapes to the "noncontributing" members of society leeching off the backs of hard, honest working people like yourself.

 

[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.

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.

The thing is that they will give something back to the artist if they go and see their concerts. It's still not acceptable but at least they're giving something to the artist. A lot of the time pirating acts like a full demo.

So what if people who pirate films or games go out and buy something else that that company has developed? And what if people don't go to the live shows? Surely they should have to pay for both the initial CD and the show? I don't think you can say it's ok as long as they give something else in another area.

Not ok, just not quite as bad.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Nice cop-out. Of course you can't just draw Sonic fanart all day or course through art school with no thoughts towards the application of your skills to an actual career, and expect a job to fall into your lap. It's about making the right choices and following a feasible path. If you do enough research and build a solid portfolio to show off marketable skills (street performing usually does not count), you can successfully pursue art.

And yes, networking is important. If you do work that helps people get to know you or contribute to your community, you will develop a network of contacts over time. Just e-mailing people with questions about their job helps show that you're interested. Few people have the luxury of important connections from the start, but to say it's impossible to make contacts is a lame excuse. Talk to any artist in my industry and see if they tell you that having connections is the only way to get a job or is a more important factor than skill. Ask them how hard they had to work and sacrifice to get that job, and if it's worth it.

It sounds like you've made a lot of excuses like these. If it's always someone else's fault and the system is totally against you, you don't have to feel as bad when you don't try.

Uh, since when did this argument suddenly become about me personally?

I don't have any aspirations to earn a living through my art and I've never claimed that I do. So where did you come up with those accusations that im "blaming everybody else" and "making excuses"?

I create art purely for my own self-satisfaction, not to attract some fucking audience or to be able to put a pricetag on it. Partly because I think such aspirations would stifle my creative abilities and partly because, frankly I think it's inappropriate.

Supporting me? Am I on welfare or something? It sounds like you're simply jealous that other people can make money doing something that they enjoy.

No but if you get paid doing something that produces absolutely nothing integral to human survival, whereas others actually work to produce the things you need for your own survival (like food, medicine, clothing etc.)

They produce vital products for our survival, and you get to have access to a piece of that without actually producing anything vital at all through this economic system. How is that fair?

Just because you invest your time in something, it doesn't mean that it's actually important or even useful for survival and the perpetuation of the species.

 

[b3nn3tt]

So what if people who pirate films or games go out and buy something else that that company has developed? And what if people don't go to the live shows? Surely they should have to pay for both the initial CD and the show? I don't think you can say it's ok as long as they give something else in another area.

Not ok, just not quite as bad.

I fear that we shan't see eye to eye on this, so I suggest we agree to disagree and part ways amicably.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I wanna see this art that has you all sour grapes to the "noncontributing" members of society leeching off the backs of hard, honest working people like yourself.

Impossible im afraid.

I rarely keep my works after completing them. Im not very sentimental about my creations once they've been completed.

It's kind of the same thing as with those buddhist monks who sit around making complex works of art with coloured sand, knowing full well that the slightest breeze of wind might cause all the sand to blow away, ruining the piece instantly making them contemplating matters of futility and how transient the physical world is.

 

[Supertegwyn]

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.

I would have to disagree. Art has been the inspiration for many great deeds throughout history, and without art you must only turn to George Orwell's 1982 for a possible future.

So you are saying that making Art is not a real job? What about movie directors? Producers? Writers? Actors? Authors? Programmers? Those people all make art, do you want to put them all out of a job?

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

The title of this thread is incredibly misleading. Why do people care about piracy? Because it's theft, against the law and usually incredibly damaging to what industry is being stolen from.

It's not theft. And it's not against the law in all countries. And even in the countries that do outlaw internet piracy, even THEIR LAWS recognize the "crime" of copyright violation as something different than theft. (different punishments, different definitions, different situations etc. etc.)

For fuck sake, just STOP calling it "theft" alright? Just because some of your convoluted and moronic opinions might consider it theft, it DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THEFT IN ANY LEGAL SENSE OF THE WORD!

Thank you, that would be all...

Ok.
Do you want to explain to me exactly what the differnce is between downloading a game you have the ability to buy and stealing a game from a shop you have the ability to buy?

You're right, it's not theft in any legal sense. But that's what it is.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So I guess Sony and Microsoft should start handing out free Consoles then?

After all, videogames are hardly necessary for the survival of the human race. Compared to the doctors working on preventative measures for cancer, or new vaccines, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are pretty much valueless in what they contribute to humanity. You can't feed someone with a 360. You can't clothe someone with a PS3. So I guess they should just give them to use for free, rather than charging us for using their inherently useless items, yes?

I'd rather look at it like this: if someone managed to swipe the blueprints for consoles and started manufacturing them and giving them out for free while Sony and Microsoft still try to demand ridiculous sums of money for them, then I would have as little sympathy for Sony and Microsoft as I have for the supposed "victims" of current internet piracy.

Because it works like this in a capitalistic system: a product or service is only worth as much as the consumers are willing to pay for it. If someone suddenly started to produce consoles and distributed them to everyone for free, then Sony's and Microsoft's consoles would be worth nothing anymore.

But that's never going to happen, mainly because there's no way to manufacture the parts needed for the consoles at no cost (and I doubt anyone is going to fork out their own cash for said parts just so they can give the world free consoles).

Producing copies of videogames, music and movies for free however, is entirely possible thanks to the technological progression that made it all happen.

It's here to stay, and thus it is up to the ones with obsolete businessmodels to create artificial worth to demand money for in new ways that are viable with the current technological progress.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

but it's not like the artists loose money from people downloading them if they're signed to big labels anyway.

EXACTLY! Because a person downloading a song wouldn't necessarily pay for that song if they didn't have the option of downloading it.

Thusit is impossible for the corporations to actually prove that they have "lost" anything through piracy because there is NO GUARANTEE WHAT SO EVER, that the people who downloaded pirated copies of songs would've paid for the songs if they couldn't download them.

And this very fact, invalidates pretty much every argument against internet piracy.