rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Same Old Problem Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated?
Granted -- a loss is a loss but nothing is ever perfect and most folks won't turn into thieves unless they feel justified. Of course some folks can justify any illegal action but most are happy to follow the rules as long as they don't feel shafted. In my opinion, the cost of traditional audio (CD) and video (DVD and especially Blu Ray) products is rather high in perspective to their perceived value. Audio CDs perhaps less so since it's common to get many repeated plays from music. But how often do we watch movies over and over and over again? And no -- I don't like limited-play DVD options. With today's HSI and cheap storage, we should be able to download what we want and play it as many times as we want.
Certainly buying tracks ala carte for ~$1 offers a great option to buying whole albums. If only the TV providers would follow this model. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by rradina:Granted -- a loss is a loss but nothing is ever perfect and most folks won't turn into thieves unless they feel justified. So if I'm justified in stealing your wallet it's ok then. I mean as long as I have a REASON then it's ok. Either something is ok to do or it's not. It's that simple. Who makes the final decision if the justification is justified or not? And who justifies that decision? If you are doing the right thing you NEVER have to justify yourself. If you have to "justify" your actions you are most likely doing something you shouldn't. |
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY Reviews:
 ·Verizon VoiceWing
 ·Verizon FiOS
·VOIPo
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated? Yes I agree 100%. This has been the flawed thinking of the entertainment industry for years. Most people who download a movie or a music CD never would buy it anyway. Now maybe that does not make it right, but as far as $'s are concerned the industry lost nothing. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69: If you are doing the right thing you NEVER have to justify yourself. So is that why we keep on trying to justify with a daily different reason why we invaded Iraq ? Hmmm. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Dude, there are other forms of entertainment besides reruns on MSNBC! Hmmm. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69: So if I'm justified in stealing your wallet it's ok then. No, but I don't care if you make a copy of my wallet.  |
|
| reply to BF69
Wow, reading your posts is like listening to the insane rantings of a deranged syphilitic mind.
Hmm.. If you steal my wallet, well, then, I don't have my wallet, and I can't use it. That is STEALING, because I don't have it anymore.
HOWEVER, If you made a COPY of my wallet, well, that's fine, I still have my wallet, and you have a copy of it. Pray tell me, what exactly do I lose if you make a copy of my wallet? Perhaps I would have sold it to you, so, I would have to manufacture another wallet, which would cost me money. So, by copying my wallet, you have deprived me of the money I would have made by selling it to you. But, what if you never would buy my wallet? Hmmm.. Therein lies the rub. By making a COPY of my wallet, you have 'potentially' prevented me from selling you my wallet. But, 'potential' is not FACT. Unless, of course, you subscribe to 'thought crimes', where facts don't matter.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to BF69
I agree with you but this isn't about absolute right and absolute wrong. I was looking at this from the perspective of why a normally ethical member of society will break the rules. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to bgraham
said by bgraham:said by rradina:Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated? Yes I agree 100%. This has been the flawed thinking of the entertainment industry for years. Most people who download a movie or a music CD never would buy it anyway. Now maybe that does not make it right, but as far as $'s are concerned the industry lost nothing. That argument doesn't fly. If you do not want to PAY for a product you are not ENITLED to a product. It doesn't matter if there is not loss financial or otherwise. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to rradina
said by rradina:I agree with you but this isn't about absolute right and absolute wrong. Sure it is.
I was looking at this from the perspective of why a normally ethical member of society will break the rules.
because
A) they don't think the rules are being broken because they have idiots firends that convince then it's ok.
B) big business is evil( and yet people still want their products ) so it's ok to take from them. |
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to rradina
This isn't even a relativistic argument. It comes down to the philosophical nature of ownership. Our society is based around the idea that if you put effort into making something you ought to own it or be able to sell the rights to own it. This is how labor is rewarded.
The problem is that when there isn't a strict one to one relationship associated with this the entire issue gets a lot trickier. If a farmer grows some corn and you steal it he doesn't have corn. If a farmer grows some corn and you watch him to learn how he does it and then use these methods to grow your own corn, is this stealing? Based on some copyright laws it is, but most people would say that it depends on exactly what you copied, how you copied it and how it affects him. If you use it to compete with him and deprive him of his livlihood, most people would say it is stealing. If you don't and use it to grow your own corn for people he would never sell his to most people wouldn't call it theft.
Piracy isn't too different from this. You copying someone's creative work, but not taking the product. This is why it isn't a simple issue unfortunately since in some cases it can actually result in the production companies making more money. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I wasn't arguing anything. I agree that illegal copying is, illegal. I was simply trying to understand why people do it.
If you don't try to understand both sides it seems impossible to make an effective argument on either side. Look at health care. Regardless of which side of the isle you call home, we have 100% partisan support.
I went through some recent legal battles and my attorney advised me that there are rarely sole winners and sole losers. She said that if both parties think they are getting screwed, the deal was probably fair. |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by rradina:I agree with you but this isn't about absolute right and absolute wrong. Sure it is. Night of the Living Dead is currently public domain. Is it an absolute right or wrong to distribute it? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by bgraham:said by rradina:Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated? Yes I agree 100%. This has been the flawed thinking of the entertainment industry for years. Most people who download a movie or a music CD never would buy it anyway. Now maybe that does not make it right, but as far as $'s are concerned the industry lost nothing. That argument doesn't fly. If you do not want to PAY for a product you are not ENITLED to a product. It doesn't matter if there is not loss financial or otherwise. Funny, I don't feel your entitled to lecture people on the evils of cut and paste. |
|
|
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by bgraham:said by rradina:Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated? Yes I agree 100%. This has been the flawed thinking of the entertainment industry for years. Most people who download a movie or a music CD never would buy it anyway. Now maybe that does not make it right, but as far as $'s are concerned the industry lost nothing. That argument doesn't fly. If you do not want to PAY for a product you are not ENITLED to a product. It doesn't matter if there is not loss financial or otherwise. These companies are granted legal exclusivity to distribution of their product through the right of law. Ultimately copyright is meant to benefit society. Do you really believe the RIAA is benefitting society? |
|
andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | reply to bgraham
said by bgraham:said by rradina:Isn't this the same old problem of whether or not someone will buy if illegal copying was eliminated? I other words, it's great to claim billions are lost because of illegal copying but aren't those figures inflated and the true losses are much, much smaller than stated? Yes I agree 100%. This has been the flawed thinking of the entertainment industry for years. Most people who download a movie or a music CD never would buy it anyway. Now maybe that does not make it right, but as far as $'s are concerned the industry lost nothing. In addition, downloaders can provide free word of mouth advertising, so there's even a possible gain. (Of course, if the content sucks, then the opposite is true, but that's as it should be.) |
|
Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to chimera
said by chimera:This isn't even a relativistic argument. It comes down to the philosophical nature of ownership. Our society is based around the idea that if you put effort into making something you ought to own it or be able to sell the rights to own it. This is how labor is rewarded. The problem is that when there isn't a strict one to one relationship associated with this the entire issue gets a lot trickier. If a farmer grows some corn and you steal it he doesn't have corn. If a farmer grows some corn and you watch him to learn how he does it and then use these methods to grow your own corn, is this stealing? Based on some copyright laws it is, but most people would say that it depends on exactly what you copied, how you copied it and how it affects him. If you use it to compete with him and deprive him of his livlihood, most people would say it is stealing. If you don't and use it to grow your own corn for people he would never sell his to most people wouldn't call it theft. Piracy isn't too different from this. You copying someone's creative work, but not taking the product. This is why it isn't a simple issue unfortunately since in some cases it can actually result in the production companies making more money. BUT-if you grow corn for YOUR OWN CONSUMPTION and eat THAT instead of buying from the farmer, is THAT theft?
I'd say no..... |
|
