CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
to tshirt
Re: Watch as network performance decreases for all...Downloading is impossible for the content owners to detect. There is no way to go after people when you don't even know if they are doing anything.
In the end, we will probably end up with an Internet surcharge which gets paid to content owners much like the audio CD fee. Even if they were to get legislation, they would still cry piracy in order to get some free money... that's all this is about. |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-17 9:37 am
Because it's difficult, doesn't make it legal, moral, or right.
And yes they'll always get legislation/gov't will side with them, because that industry represents 10's of millions of jobs, downloaders almost none.
the industry won't give up but they may escalate to the point where it damages internet usabiliy (massive/slow deep packet inspection, servers being blocked, counrties being blocked, far worse than today) And the pirates are to blame, not the system, not the industry, not the gov't, just a bunch of cheap asses.
And a content onwers fee is the worst way to handle it.
Internet costs double for everyone even if they don't download?
How about everyone PAY for what THEY use/download, even if they "weren't going to buy it anyway" (bunch of spoiled brats) |
|
 The Limit
Premium Member
join:2007-09-25
Denver, CO |
Are you seriously advocating for a cap system to deter piracy?
Also, let's be real here, no one deserves getting their head bashed in for copyright infringement. There's a difference between stealing and copyright infringement which has been discussed here ad naseum. I don't pirate much anymore (simply because if the product isn't worth buying then I don't bother). |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-17 10:21 am
I'm not advocating, I'm predicting a fairly obvious response.
And yes you can play the "it's infringement, not stealing" semantics game forever, but downloading does damage the economic value to the artist and those they choose to assign the legal rights to distribute.
If you are staving( or see your job being devalue/eliminated) BECAUSE I run by a STEAL your food/money, you will try to stop me.
if saying "Hey, Man!?!" doesn't work, you'll call a cop, if that fails to stop me, you'll get physical.*
The same applies to pirates vs the industry, It will escalate.
And those most responsible for promoting piracy usually aren't the first to get hurt, it'll be kids and mothers and others who thought it was "OK, cause everyone does it"
*Actually clubbing to death is a metaphor for higher, more punitive actions, and would probably be a near last ditch effort, but you never know, when things get out of control, bad things happen. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC
1 recommendation |
to tshirt
said by tshirt: And a content onwers fee is the worst way to handle it.
Internet costs double for everyone even if they don't download?
How about everyone PAY for what THEY use/download, even if they "weren't going to buy it anyway" (bunch of spoiled brats)
You are right, a fee paid to the content owners is a terrible way to handle it but it is exactly what they are after. It represents guaranteed income for the shareholders so they have to go for it (bunch of spoiled brats). They will continue to claim massive losses to piracy until they do get it, just like with CDs. Why don't people simply pay for what they download? Because that product doesn't exist! How is it that people with no money invested nor money to be gained can develop a system that provides a massive library of content available immediately and the content owners are unable to do the same? Netflix is a great start, I have an account and if something is available there I watch it there... why bother downloading it. As anyone will tell you, their content is lacking. So the real question is why can't business provide the product the customers want to buy? |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-17 2:22 pm
said by CXM_Splicer: Why don't people simply pay for what they download? Because that product doesn't exist! How is it that people with no money invested nor money to be gained can develop a system that provides a massive library of content available immediately and the content owners are unable to do the same? Netflix is a great start, I have an account and if something is available there I watch it there... why bother downloading it. As anyone will tell you, their content is lacking. So the real question is why can't business provide the product the customers want to buy?
But music downloads for MOST content have been available for years, legally even if early efforts were crude. both the music and film industries were highly vested in the DVD and Bluray distribution methods, and were afraid of losing that known market for an online market that seemed uncontroled and highly driven by theft. there was "profit" for torrent, limewire, and other distribution designers in that they got "free" content, more over had they CHOOSEN to packageand market they're methods well they could have been running the legit services, or at least writting the software for the current storefronts. The real question are: If EXACTLY what I want is not for sale in the way I want it, do I have the right to steal it? to encourage others to steal it? and to develop and contribute, and possibly profit from the black market using it? And if the applies to data{software, music, video, other} what else can I take? |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
said by tshirt: But music downloads for MOST content have been available for years, legally even if early efforts were crude.
both the music and film industries were highly vested in the DVD and Bluray distribution methods, and were afraid of losing that known market for an online market... Yes downloads for music have been available (despite initial RIAA resistance to them) and the people that used to ask me how limewire works now ask me how iTunes, Pandora & Spotify work. Unfortunately, you will NEVER hear the RIAA admit that piracy has decreased... if anything, they say it is getting worse. Why? Because they are extortionists trying to get free money. said by tshirt:The real question are: If EXACTLY what I want is not for sale in the way I want it, do I have the right to steal it? to encourage others to steal it? and to develop and contribute, and possibly profit from the black market using it?
And if the applies to data{software, music, video, other} what else can I take?
I have no problem using a more realistic, non-lobbied definition of 'fair use' when watching/listening for my own personal entertainment & the content owner refuses to make it reasonably available. I could just as easily steal it by borrowing it from the library and listening to/watching it or by borrowing it from a friend (which is, in essence, what torrenting is) and listening to/watching it. Is it wrong to steal from an extortionist? |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-17 6:56 pm
Yes, it is wrong to steal from anyone.
You don't legally get to decide the ToS.
Torrenting is quite different in that you may end up with millions of unpaid for copies, where the library or fiends copy was paid for and would take a long time to circulate to millions of people, most likely encouraging many more sales.
Again you are being selective in your adherence to the law.
So whatever the industry does in response is on your(collective) head, unfortunately, some of this fallout may effect the rest of us, and some may choose to strike out at you rather than the industry.
Your continuing efforts to rationalize your behavior only point out how weak your case is.
you obviously understand fair use does not mean free use, but chose to ignore it when it's most convenient for you.
Each of your statements show that YOU are the greedy one, completely self serving exactly as you pretend/portray the industry and the politicians without conviencing evidence in most cases.
You are the problem, not the solution. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
said by tshirt:you obviously understand fair use does not mean free use, but chose to ignore it when it's most convenient for you And you obviously know that copying does not mean stealing but choose to ignore it when it's most convenient for you :P I may be 'the problem' from the point of view of the **AA but I do not have their viewpoint. I have seen their viewpoint and it is wrong. Why anyone would choose to deliberately convince themselves that an incorrect view is correct and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. EVERYONE is selective in their behavior and whether or not they choose to follow a particular law. If people blindly followed stupid laws Alcohol would still be prohibited, oral sex between married couples would still be illegal in most states, and you would still be paying tax on your tea to the British. I am sure those laws also had their 'defenders' up on moral high horses admonishing everyone for their wrongness. In the end, common sense usually prevails. |
|
