JimmySeal wrote:

How would you propose that writers and musicians receive any benefit from their written works and recordings if they can only sell one copy before it's reproduced ad infinitum without any benefit to the person who produced it?

Just play the same music on live concerts.

The music recorded could serve as a promotional tool.

That said, I still think that there is a big problem and that we need to find a solution that fits both sides. So we need some new good valid ideas of course

that's worked for music so far, but the same thing can't happen with books, for example. And i don't think it's an ideal situation either. Why shouldn't a band get paid for the recording? It costs a lot of money and time to record songs to a high quality, and there's a lot of people who prefer to listen to music at home.

i think the idea of supply and demand is being arguing wrongly by nadiatims. Because while the paper and ink, cd, or digital recording might be in high supply, the creative act that makes an artistic product only occurs once and is therefore very rare.

There's only one Haruki Murakami, and if i want to read his book, i should be paying him for that privelege, no matter who distributes it. If you refuse to pay those people you enjoy reading or listening to or generally being entertained by, how can you expect them to continue making stuff? They won't have the time or money to do so... which obviously is going to decrease the quality of what's on offer. I doubt your average megavideo uploader will be able to provide you with the same quality stuff for you to consume.

You say that the state enforces the copyright for them but they don't do anything for the taxpayer. How many taxpayers do you know that don't enjoy some form of art or entertainment?? How good would our lives be without it....??

Last edited by IceCream (2012 January 22, 4:19 pm)

I have to agree with Maddox's point that protests should really be meaningful.

that's so unhelpful. Why can't people propose better solutions instead....?!?

＾＾well, i definately agree. i'd much rather sign a petition asking the companies to provide better online services at a reasonable cost than one that just asks to stop a piece of legislation without providing any alternative, because they clearly haven't got a clue how to go about things.

But people hacking and attacking sites is just plain annoying. That's going to do nothing except strengthen those in power's impression that piracy is strongly linked to criminality, and their resolve to attack freedom on the internet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16628143

BBC wrote:

Ahead of the day's action, Mr Dodd said: "It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests."

Meanwhile, Creative America - a group which represents many big names in the movie business including Disney and Warner Bros - has launched an advertising campaign in the US.

A banner advertisement was shown in New York's Times Square offering advice on "what to do during an internet blackout". It suggested reading books, listening to music or watching a movie.

lololololollolol

This article explained how the incentives worked for users to upload pirated content:

Make money online by selling pirated content? These sites do.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/seo/make-mone … -container

TheSlyPig wrote:

Another interesting read on the subject. What do you guys think?

I think that article is poopoo.


Why I _______.

I am free to _______ because I'm free to do whatever I want dude!


Beautiful.

Note how the whole post is centered around me, and my needs?

Like countless thousands of similar arguments, it is all based on the assumption that "I", the individual, is separate from everything else, that somehow "I" can function completely independently of everything else.

It's a lie of course. There's no such thing. Everything in the world is dependent on everything else. Of course if you limit your vision to your immediate neighborhood and nearest convenience store, which is what we tend to do all the time, the illusion is so good it seems to be true.

For starters, his obsession with "owning" something. He's convinced he has a God-given right to "own" something.

Besides the fact that you never truly own anything (the idea of property is a concept) you don't even own what you see as your own life. What you think as your "own" body is life's creation. You can groom it, dress it up, have fun with it, but soon enough life will take it away. And even if you want to cheat, there's no telling what will happen. The "odd" section of the news is filled everyday with stories of people who survived despite the craziest odds, and conversely, people who suddenly collapse without any foreboding symptoms.

So yeah, the entitlement thing that qwertyytrewq wrote. It's all based on false assumptions.

kainzero wrote:

but if you're an adult you gotta man up and support your hobbies or they'll just disappear.

Copyright infringement is a "tragedy of the commons" case. Most people that pirate/download from the internet be it music/movies/anime/manga/books/etc. do it because its free, and I think many people would admit this after you press them hard enough. But most people also comfort themselves by saying "someone else will buy it, what can one person downloading really do to hurt sales." But when you get tons of people saying this, you end up with the above tragedy.

(If this point has been brought up then forgive me. I haven't actually read the thread) Its worth noting though that counting every person that downloads something from the internet for free vs buying DOES NOT EQUAL potential sales loss. This is a point pushed by the content providers ("Every download = Lost sale"). In reality, there is no guarantee that someone that downloaded would have bought the product in the first place.

Instead of focusing on how much people are downloading and what they download. I think there should be more focus on the stuff that people actually buy and why they buy it.

I doubt any new companies are going to sprout out of the ashes of the major labels. Mass pirating means that no future company can hope to be profitable in the distribution business. The only real future is in concert and event promotions.

vix86 wrote:

Copyright infringement is a "tragedy of the commons" case. Most people that pirate/download from the internet be it music/movies/anime/manga/books/etc. do it because its free, and I think many people would admit this after you press them hard enough. But most people also comfort themselves by saying "someone else will buy it, what can one person downloading really do to hurt sales." But when you get tons of people saying this, you end up with the above tragedy.

is there any proof of this?
i keep hearing things like "most people are freeloaders." but who are these freeloaders? where do they come from? do they come from brazil where 45% tax is charged on videogames?

are most people REALLY freeloaders? i want stats and studies.

speaking of anime, i downloaded it because i could get HD episodes fansubbed and within hours of it being released in japan instead of waiting for a long drawn out licensing process to buy a dvd in 480i that contains 4 episodes, costs $20, and comes out a full year after it's released in japan and after people are done talking about it and you're already too late. manga is along the same lines. that was my rationale.

what's funny is that most fansubbers don't do it to screw anyone over, and i don't think they even do it for "the anime" but they do it to gain e-fame. that's my experience working with them.

Your justifications for stealing are very childish.