Intellectual Property Rights: Piracy FTW :b: :b:

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aeson
They are all derived from the same impetus.

An alarm system obviously has economic costs to the consumer. Anti-priracy devices do not.

Supply and demand, as well as operational costs and profit margins.

Or do you really think that if no one wanted apples they'd cost the same as they do now? Or if there was a drastic increase in labor costs, you think the apple growers would just eat that and not change pricing?

Oh dear. What is it with people at ACS and economics. You must have taken a course because you know that there is such a thing as supply and demand, but that's about as far as it goes.

Yes, apples cost the same when the demand for them changes (at least to the intermediate buyers). That's because it is a competitive market. And you second sentence doesn't make sense. I'm the one saying that in the apples market that higher labor costs will increase the price of apples. It's in the copywritten materials market that higher costs do not increase the price.

If you were correct that only demand matters in a content market, then a PC game which a million people want to play would cost the same as a CD (or even a single) which a million people want to listen to. But we all know it would be more like ~$40 for the game, and ~$10 for the CD (~$1 for the single).

WTF? No it means that people are willing to pay more for the PC game. Why do you think different CDs cost more and less?

[SlowwHand]

Exactly. Like you can probably find Civ 3 in the bargain bin for $1.97, buy 1 get 1 free.

[Tim_Augustus]

Originally posted by Aeson


In your world it may be great fun to put a plastic disk into a drive every time you want to play a game. And if something happens to that disk, the risk of which is greatly increased because you have to use it every time you play the game, you may very well not be able play the game at all.

Or how about getting to punch in a 30 digit code into an installation, only to be told that that installation code has expired. So you get to call up and enter a 40 digit number into a phone, then talk for 15 minutes to some lady in India who can barely speak english as you explain to her why you replaced your CPU and MB and are now installing your copy of WinXP again. Then take a 30 digit code and input it back into your computer just so you can use it.

Or how about you download some music, pay for it, then get an upgraded player... which isn't going to let you use the music you've already paid for. Yay!

And you know what? You get to pay extra so those companies can provide those "services". Designing anti-piracy techniques, software, and chips isn't free. Call centers to check installation IDs don't just grow on trees. Someone gets to pay for it, and guess who that is?

This is what piracy does for the law abiding consumer. It gives corporations a justification for all this crap. And if you think that's not harmful, you're just an idiot.

I hear you mate, and full sympathy to you too. Just remember though - these so-called 'antipiracy' measures are only hurting those who chose not to break the law - you might pay $400 to have the privilege of having to chat to some bloke in India about why you want to reinstall windows for the fourth time this month, but the pirate had the easy way - downloaded a fixed version with the DRM nonsense removed and never had to beg the maker for permission to upgrade his computer...

Or those who wear out their CivCD through constant handling while the less uptight obtain a small patch that removes the pain and preserves their investment.

It's pretty clear to me that the big media corps have only themselves to blame in this entire mess - had they embraced broadband internet, found new ways of exploiting the medium, they could have reaped at least some of the massively overstated piracy losses they claim. Instead they chose to screw their legitimate customers over while creating an entertaining and competitive hobby for the various groups who love nothing else than breaking the latest flavour of DRM and beating the producer to the release date. The market, of course, acted as markets always do: searched for the most convenient and efficient way to buy what they wanted, and found bittorent instead.

And it seems a bit ironic that these corporate media types, one imagines ardent believers in the concept of 'free market', who no doubt rode roughshod over countless smaller media producers to achieve their market dominance, are now crying poor as a new free market opens up and threatens their carefully controlled markets

Perhaps one day we'll see one of them truly embrace the modern world and actually supply the market instead of pissing in politician's pockets demanding they take action to deny consumers their desires!

[Arrian]

Watching people contort themselves in an effort to justify theft is amusing. Especially when it's someone other than Kidiculous. edit: not aimed at you, Tim - it's a more general comment on this thread and others.

-Arrian

[Shrapnel12]

I don't download music, nor do I buy CDs. I'm not really a big music lover. I think there is nothing wrong with filesharing. I don't have to justify theft as I don't think it is theft. I used to record songs from the radio on my cassette recorder all the time. As a regular show of affection, many teens used to make special tapes of love songs for their love interest. Noone thought that was wrong. The only difference between then and now is quantity. I don't think quantity is a sufficient measure of what is moral and what is not. I do have a simple solution to the problem however. Go to the library. You can get any movie, CD, book, or any other media for free. Of course if everyone did that, suddenly that would be immoral and the rich corporations would be sueing libraries and anyone who went to one.

[Arrian]

Granted, you're right that the difference between a mix tape and file sharing is quantity.

The library thing doesn't work, though. You can't keep the book/CD/etc from the library. You can't own it. You can read/listen, but you have to give it back for others to use.

-Arrian

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm unemployed

Unemployed and enjoying the fruits of others' labor without compensating them.

Sounds like a heck of a way to live life.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Unemployed and enjoying the fruits of others' labor without compensating them.

Sounds like a heck of a way to live life.

Just like capitalist

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Arrian
Granted, you're right that the difference between a mix tape and file sharing is quantity.

The library thing doesn't work, though. You can't keep the book/CD/etc from the library. You can't own it. You can read/listen, but you have to give it back for others to use.

-Arrian

No, but my point is, it wouldn't stop the greed of these corporations from trying.

[SpencerH]

I think we can agree that if someone downloads and watchs a new movie that act is clearly theft. What if I download a movie that has been on TV? Is that theft? I could've legally recorded it since the recording industry types lost that battle 30 years ago.

I would argue that once copyrighted material has been sold by the copyholder for public distribution then it is in the public domain and free for all to use so long as they dont sell it.

[Slade Wilson]

Why is downloading music wrong, but you can get it on the radio or the library? And even share it with friends?


Anytime the price of something is too high, a black market forms. The way i see it, the music industry is forming a informal cartel for price fixing. I refuse to pay 10 or 20 dollars for a single CD that can be made for so much less, and i think the success of Itunes for example shows people wont pirate if given acceptable alternatives. Music industry should stop trying to strong arm customers and start taking prices from the market like other industries do.

The RIAA can ***** about the billions being lost to pirates but that doesnt make it true. Taking the music downloaded and multiplying it by its cost does not give the amount lost, because if forced to pay what is asked for CDs in the same volume i download, i for one would go do something else.

[Kidlicious]

Yea, everyone used to make mixed tapes and borrow each others music. It wasn't immoral then. The the RAII comes along and calls it immoral and a bunch of people follow along. Pitifull.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson
I refuse to pay 10 or 20 dollars for a single CD that can be made for so much less,

How much are you willing to pay for a new full length music cd?

[asleepathewheel]

I like to get paid (at the rate I or the market sets) for my work, so why should I enjoy someone else's work without compensating them at their desired rate?

Do people not value their own labor?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I like to get paid (at the rate I or the market sets) for my work, so why should I enjoy someone else's work without compensating them at their desired rate?

Do people not value their own labor?

Yes, I value labor. I also value the joy that music brings to all of our lives. I think that being able to listen to more music than one can afford is a very good thing.