Piracy

[Wiglaf]

Also, the difference is, that you are not depriving the product from someone else when you pirate it, and that's a big part of "stealing". That is, you are not depriving it from anyone else. You're making a copy. And no, it's not the same. Only nazis think it's the same,

You're very adept at analogies

Also, a big part of stealing is DEPRIVING THE SELLERS OF PROFIT, not just other buyers. Wow. Do I need to explain this in more detail?

[Pekka]

No. You can go and salute the leader

Or buy vitamins. You need more oxygen.

I never caller piracy an act that is not stealing. In the OP, the question is, what is the difference, and that is the difference.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Pekka
No. You can go and salute the leader

Or buy vitamins. You need more oxygen.

washed up porn stars who make senseless threads that no one reads *****ing about your stupid daily drama in a country 99% of people can't locate on a map

[Wiglaf]

I never caller piracy an act that is not stealing. In the OP, the question is, what is the difference, and that is the difference.

Nice edit.

I don't buy your distinction. Stealing a physical copy rarely deprives other people of the ability to obtain their own copy.

[Pekka]

You don't understand the distinction simply because you are too stupid.

[Pekka]

And the laws around the world seems to be able to make the distinction, making a difference between immaterial issues.

THere's a reason why the charges are different when you steal a CD and when you pirate it. And even when the source is changing, as in who is getting the damage (the store, artist, the company that represents the artist), the laws applied are still different, and that is because the nature of it is different.

You don't have to buy the distinction. It just means you don't get it. It still is there.

[Wiglaf]

THere's a reason why the charges are different when you steal a CD and when you pirate it.

No, charges aren't much different, actually. Enforcement, as well as lack of strong evidence in many pirating cases, is why you see settlements instead of mass arrests.

You don't understand the distinction simply because you are too stupid.

you're a big boy

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Whatever, that's you personally.

Music is a great example. Lots of people bought albums. Then napster. Big decline in album sales.

I know plenty of people who download games, movies, etc. They could, I guess, claim "Oh, I'd never have bought it anyway," but I'd really doubt that. They like movies and games, but would never pay for it?

Napster didn't destroy album sales, per se; one of the facts that came out at the Napster trial was that cd sales actually increased in the early days of Napster. This should have come as no surprise; the music industry already understood that there was a correlation between the circulation of illegal recordings, like bootleg tapes, and the sale of legit recoprdings by the same artists.

What Napster destroyed, however, was the cd as the dominant model for music delivery. The downloading generation no longer thinks in terms of cds/albums, as my generation did, but in terms of individual songs, and that shift in thinking is what's killed the cd (just as an earlier shift away from that thinking killed the 45). Initially, of course, that shift led to massive illegal downloading. But Pekka is right: the huge success of Itunes is an indication that, given a choice, people will actually choose to acquire music legally, even when illegal means are available to them.

[Pekka]

"
No, charges aren't much different, actually. Enforcement, as well as lack of strong evidence in many pirating cases, is why you see settlements instead of mass arrests."

But they still are different and are their own domain, immaterial issues. You know, it's a whole field to work on, study, investigate, consult, do business etc. So, what you don't buy as a distinction is still a distinction.

It isn't the result of those charges that also differs, it's the actual charges, they're different charges altogether.

Perhaps what you're trying to claim is comprehensive view, but that's exactly what is not going on here. The whole issue about different fields and domains is real, is recognized in the court of law, institutions of education and research as well as the business community. Not only are they different type of crimes, even your original claim is not universal, as in sales decline because of piracy. This you simply can not prove convincingly, and we have plenty of countering examples where the exact opposite happened.

And the slow action to this new world that is the digital world is also very well and commonly known. That is, when the mp3s came to exist, it was obvious at some point, that we have an encoding format that actually is superior to what we've seen before. wav-files took too much space if you wanted some quality, but mp3s solved that problem. So combine that with the internet boom of the mid 90s, and it became wildly popular to trade mp3s.

And when did the businesses finally start to really make an effort to accept the selling of mp3s directly to the customers? Not only that, but people were telling, the consumers were saying a long time, that they'd be willing to buy mp3s online, if the cost is right per song. So as many instances where in denial for years, it really didn't make a difference other than ... they were not selling what they could have been selling in the first place.

This is not to show how supposedly the sales declined, this is to show that the businesses were slow on this one. It's simply supply and demand. Just like we're going to see lots of development in the TV business, where you can order shows via the internet in HD quality, movies and other entertainment. Before this wasn't very feasible due to the requirements for the quality versus bandwidth. But now, it's feasible and it's been done, so they're getting it right, unlike the music industry years back.

So no, none of your claims are actually trivial or universally true. But the distinction between these crimes is true. You don't have to buy it.

[MRT144]

intellectual property rights and copyright when it comes to "art" aren't worth respecting. If you wanna get paid, give me an incentive to pay you. Legal or otherwise. Until then kick rocks.

[Kuciwalker]

[Kuciwalker]

The incentive is (rightfully) there, btw, in the fact that it's required by law.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The incentive is (rightfully) there, btw, in the fact that it's required by law.

come enforce the law. then the incentive will be readily known.

The reason I dont shoplift is because its higher risk, lower value. The reason I pirate (hell I havent even done it in more than a year now) is the lower risk, equal value.

Im tired of whiny baby "artists". find a way to make money or stfu. simply whining and trying to drum up pity wont do it. artists generally make art regardless of income from it, a lot of times in spite of income from it.

[MRT144]

also entertainment isnt one of those things I'd put on the social value level with pharmaceuticals, technology, etc etc. its a bonus to life, but doesnt make it or break it.

[Adagio]

I see downloading movies as advertising. I've downloaded lots of movies I wouldn't have bought, and since I liked the movie I ended up buying it
I've also downloaded a lot of movies that I wanted to buy, most them I ended up buying shortly after release anyway (so no loss there), the ones I didn't buy was because the movies wasn't worth anything