Terrible, stupid decision. Greedy corporations who are butthurt about piracy are just trying to make an example out of these guys and it is absolutely pathetic, this is not justice, I'm sure that this decision was made by intense pressure or maybe even bribes from these corporations. I hope the decision is appealed and they end up winning.
Eh, pirate bay wasn't always that good really.. the good shit comes from demonoid.
If it's my opinions on copyright you want then here: Copyright should protect products and services from being stolen and used to make profit. For example, if someone copies your program for themselves so be it. But if someone were to re-release a book like you said, then by all means damages should be paid. They're making money off your work.
However copying a file isn't stealing, you don't steal anything. You just remove the potential for a company to make profits. Basically the argument against privacy is that the companies are being stolen from. When corporations see less income this year than last year, they see it as a loss. Not that they actually lose anything. While there's nothing wrong with them maximizing profits, it's not right for them to blame this loss blindly on pirates without considering any facts that might suggest it isn't piracy.
The fact we're in a recession couldn't cause losses? The fact that they believe every shit artist they fork out is gold dust and we're supposed to buy it whether it's bad or not? None of these reasons occur to them to cause losses. And instead of looking at successes like Radiohead who've made millions releasing their music online for free, they just blindly stab at pirates saying it's their fault, and not their ignorance of customer needs, or their outdated business models. They have no proof piracy does any damage, only their 'losses' which could be due to any number of reasons. Then there's Roger Wallis, who has done research and found that those who pirate purchase more than those who don't. They pirate more, but they also buy more.
Anyway should you care, that's why I support piracy.
If someone stoles my car, I don't give a shit if he sold it for profit or gave it away for free.
Why you believe that if no money was made it's ok.
Maybe I phrased that wrong, from being copied and used to make profit. Taking a photo of an painting in your house isn't stealing, you didn't lose anything. But if I copy that photo and start selling it claiming I made it, when it was in fact you. Then I'm stealing.Shining_Sabe posted:
Like I said, if you can show me where your information that shows piracy causes loss in profits (even though SOMEHOW the entertainment industry hasn't suffered at all in the recession compared to other industries) then I'll be more inclined to agree with you. Here's my research that shows that it doesn't, in fact here's 3 decades of research that shows that it doesn't:
Read the transcript, that's just the tip of the iceberg from years of research stretching right back to when radio music was up for being banned. There has even been government research into the same topic which found similar results to Roger Wallis. This is no different from then. New technology that will bring new ways to enjoy our content and as usual the industries panic like insane dogs.
But you're missing the point, when you pirate you're not taking anything away. You don't lose a song, a copy is made. If someone copied your car I somehow doubt it'll affect you in anyway. If you didn't want them to copy your car, then they wouldn't. That's the point of sharing, people are sharing things they wan't to share with other people. If you decided to sell you car to someone, and someone copied that car and gave it to a friend, you lose nothing. This is a very skewed example and completely irrelevant to how it really works. But you're giving examples that also don't have any relevance.
There is a guy next to you giving the same, copied newspaper for free.
And man you are glad "If they like the newspaper, they quite possibly could pay for the same thing they already have!"
But yeah, nobody bought your newspaper, so no crime was actually made.
Which is why I said we need new laws. I'm not saying piracy is right, I'm saying I support it. Like in the example I said above, look at the radio. After it was accepted, and new rules were created for it. It was successful and people used it, people still use it. And now new technology exists. Technology which could be embraced properly. All I'm saying is this. The guy scanned your newspaper and turned it into a nice little chip so you can read it in your eyes for free. I could buy your bulky paper which I would have to bin eventually and lose, or I can get this free chip which I can keep forever without any inconvenience. And can read on the go without having it get in the way.
Instead of you seeing this as a brilliant innovation to take on board, and make your papers better. You continue to try and force people to buy your shitty paper and spit on everyone who doesn't saying they're wrong for using the far superior version to yours.
Why should I improve my paper when 95% of the people will just download it illegaly anyways?
Yeah, DRM. I'm going to make the paper so hard to read that it's almost impossible to a legit buyer.
I could sell the paper on a chip, hell even on a biscuit, but if it's going to get copied, who the hell cares.
The problem with this whole DRM thing, is that if there is XXX for 10$, and XXX for free, 90% of the people choose the latter one even though it might be illegal.
That's not a good excuse.
ALSO, THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO MAKE COPIES OF THEIR GAMES.
You didn't read what I said then. Why we need new rules. There will always be piracy, just because TPB was found guilty today doesn't mean piracy hasn't been around for a long time. Piracy isn't new, it's been around for years, hundreds of years if you want to really look into it. Digital piracy though has been around right back with floppies.
What you're saying is this. 'Why should I improve my paper to a model that people seem to ACTUALLY like if they'll pirate it anyway?'. But you're not taking into account that they're already pirating it. Making your paper better will gain support. You're just alienating the customer by saying 'Fuck you I'm not making things better for you because you pirate' when people have pirated for years anyway.
It was the same with floppies, radio, cds, videos. And now it's the same with the download. The industries are doing exactly what you're doing. 'People are pirating, how dare they.'
Exactly, some people. Those some people have been around for years. People have pirated for a long time. That doesn't mean people who will buy it don't exist. I am one of those people, there are loads of people in this forum who are those people. You can't banish the good in a service based on a minority of bad.
As for the excuse. You're right, it was a bad excuse. But it wasn't a great example either, he didn't produce the car after all. The car manufacturer did, and I'm sure they wouldn't have been happy with him 'copying' his car to begin with. Anyway my bad, scratch the example.
I did read. Piracy is OK, but we need rules to stop it?
Piracy is not OK. All I'm saying is that until we have rules that make buying a legitimate copy a BETTER way than pirating. It's definitely a good thing. Why stick to year old methods of distribution because some old bastard in charge refuses to accept change? Piracy doesn't do as much harm as recoiling industries claim but, if anything piracy always helps push us into new technology. Without this case I doubt there would be as much publicity on torrenting as there is now.
Ok, replace the newspaper with "Intellectual shit you pooped" if you are happy.
The idea doesn't change if the newspapers are replaced by a picture of your neikkid butt.
Piracy itself is a no no, but some developers fucking deserve it.
Example: EA. They are more concerned with protecting against pirates then actually making their games USABLE. Securom or whatever is an example of this. Oh sure, you can only install a game three times, which keeps away pirates. Oh wait, you bought the game and got a new PC/memory wiped your PC? Well, fuck you, buy it again.
Not to mention retarded marketing strategies. They hyped the fuck out of Spore, then released the European version BEFORE the western copies? That's ASKING for your game to be pirated, which it was. The highest number of downloads within a short span of time, if I recall correctly.
People trying to explain torrents by drawing a circle and calling it a cookie, I laughed.
If Piracy was removed from earth, fewer people would sit infront of the computer, more healthier kids!
Or we'll end up like this guy
Long live TPB, I hope their appeal gets through.
Essentially you are claiming that electronic media should be free and physical media should be sold and protected...which makes no sense.
Piracy =/= loss of potenital sales.
Most of the people who pirate, just try the game out. There's almost no demos for the new games.
Also lot of pirating is done on games that aren't sold anymore.
For me, for example, I can't buy cod4, because it's not sold anymore anywhere.
I didn't buy Land Of The Dead, cause it wasn't sold anywhere.
I didn't buy Postal 2 because it wasn't sold anywhere.
And pirating games that were mistakes is a good thing, since why would you want to encourage another shitty game?
Spore is a perfect example. Do you want another Spore? DO YOU?
I love idiots who actually try to justify piracy. Always gives me a good laugh.
Yeah, make your witty replies. I need some material to send to those big greedy companies for brownie points.
Oh snap. Just look at that sexy peak.
This is not affiliated with Google, though it's basically The Pirate Bay giving the finger to the industries suing it.
Ahh, this is going to be good.
Your gunna be banned, I think...
he may..buts news...funny news :P