THe only problem is our system. Its our crooked system that gives these people way more money than they deserve in the first place. Giving Jerry Seinfeld 700 000 per episode of Seinfeld is what is messed up. Many millionaires are crooks. They just do it legally because our laws allow people to charge whatever they want for their product or service, instead of taking their fair share and distributing the rest to the others. STAR_AdmiralI'm going to bet that if you could get paid more for what you do...then you would take it. As for the system....supply and demand. If you don't think certain professionals/individuals deserve so much money then don't watch/listen/go to concerts or sports events. Don't watch the SuperBowl or other sporting events. That is what gives these indivduals the money. Stop goint to see movies. If no one watched Seinfeld he would not have garnered that money. No one is given huge pay days until they provide a track record that profit will still be made if their salary is increased.
The Morality of Piracy
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.
Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.
It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.
STAR_Admiral
They make that much money because that's how much they're worth. If you get a job earning $80k a year as an engineer, how is that relevant to the fact that a garbage man only gets $30k a year? You're not earning nearly 3 times as much because you work 3 times as hard, you're earning 3 times as much because you're WORTH that much.
Highly paid athletes bring in a LOT of money in ticket sales and other ways. The money that they bring in is worth more than the $10 million that gets them to keep playing, so it's WORTH it to pay them $10 million. That said, athletes don't last long. It's a short-lived profession. And they need to earn enough money during a short time to last the rest of their lives after their careers end.
Dude, no one goes to a movie to see the cameraman, they go to watch Will Smith. People don't CARE about the camera man. They don't even know who the cameraman is. Will Smith is the face of the movie, one of the primary people actually getting people to pay money to watch the movie. If Will Smith wants $10 million to do a movie, and having Will Smith in the movie is likely to bring in an extra $100 million, then Will Smith is worth every penny. You pay him $10 million so that he doesn't walk.
[QUOTE="legend26"][...] if anything god bless piracy for getting little known films and bands know...
foxhound_fox
Many small, indie bands wouldn't have grown into what they are without piracy.
Not to mention... "People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly."
exactly
[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]
I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.
Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.
It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.
MrGeezer
They make that much money because that's how much they're worth. If you get a job earning $80k a year as an engineer, how is that relevant to the fact that a garbage man only gets $30k a year? You're not earning nearly 3 times as much because you work 3 times as hard, you're earning 3 times as much because you're WORTH that much.
Highly paid athletes bring in a LOT of money in ticket sales and other ways. The money that they bring in is worth more than the $10 million that gets them to keep playing, so it's WORTH it to pay them $10. That said, athletes don't last long. It's a short-lived profession. And they need to earn enough money during a short time to last the rest of their lives after their careers end.
Dude, no one goes to a movie to see the cameraman, they go to watch Will Smith. People don't CARE about the camera man. They don't even know who the cameraman is. Will Smith is the face of the movie, one of the primary people actually getting people to pay money to watch the movie. If Will Smith wants $10 to do a movie, and having Will Smith in the movie is likely to bring in an extra $100 million, then Will Smith is worth every penny. You pay him $10 million so that he doesn't walk.
so you are arguing that a human being is worth more then another based on their job...
I think there are a lot of people who torrent games that they already have, or games that hey have preordered but have hit the torrents ealy, such as ME2 which is already on torrents.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="legend26"][...] if anything god bless piracy for getting little known films and bands know...
legend26
Many small, indie bands wouldn't have grown into what they are without piracy.
Not to mention... "People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly."
exactly
That is a rather vague article that has no facts backing up their figures.[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]
[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"]
I must agree with CBR600. Sorry, but when it comes to movie stars, singers, pro athletes. They got enough money. There is way too much greed in america. Football players should not be getting $10million a year or whatever. They should be getting 1million and the 9 million is used to reduce ticket costs so everyone benefits, instead of a few people being greedy. Music, Movies, sports, all would cost less if people weren't so greedy. 1 million per year is plenty of money. No one needs more then that. Anyone who makes more than a million and complains about not making enough is a vile greedy individual with no concern for the good living of others. I personally believe in salary caps. No one should make more than a million per year. The extra money should be passed down to those who make 40 000 a year, 50 000 a year, etc.
Some make the argument that the people would leave to another country, which is why the salary cap would have to be universal. Others say the person would only work for 1 month or only do 1 movie, which is why the money would have to be distributed over time. I understand that people deserve the money they have worked for. That is true. But these people do not work 1000x harder than any middle ****person, they don't work 1000x longer, they didn';t do 1000x times better in school. They don't deserve 1000x more pay.
It just sickens me seeing a movie star make $10 million a year, while the cameramen, and other staff make an avg salary. The money should be passed down and distributed. The movie star will still make more, just not as much more.
legend26
They make that much money because that's how much they're worth. If you get a job earning $80k a year as an engineer, how is that relevant to the fact that a garbage man only gets $30k a year? You're not earning nearly 3 times as much because you work 3 times as hard, you're earning 3 times as much because you're WORTH that much.
Highly paid athletes bring in a LOT of money in ticket sales and other ways. The money that they bring in is worth more than the $10 million that gets them to keep playing, so it's WORTH it to pay them $10. That said, athletes don't last long. It's a short-lived profession. And they need to earn enough money during a short time to last the rest of their lives after their careers end.
Dude, no one goes to a movie to see the cameraman, they go to watch Will Smith. People don't CARE about the camera man. They don't even know who the cameraman is. Will Smith is the face of the movie, one of the primary people actually getting people to pay money to watch the movie. If Will Smith wants $10 to do a movie, and having Will Smith in the movie is likely to bring in an extra $100 million, then Will Smith is worth every penny. You pay him $10 million so that he doesn't walk.
so you are arguing that a human being is worth more then another based on their job...
No. Supply and demand. If there is a demand for the work of a star they can generate more income. If not....they don't. Basic economics.
[QUOTE="legend26"]
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Many small, indie bands wouldn't have grown into what they are without piracy.
Not to mention... "People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly."LJS9502_basic
exactly
That is a rather vague article that has no facts backing up their figures. Nobody has facts in this debate.so you are arguing that a human being is worth more then another based on their job...
legend26
OF COURSE that's what I'm saying.
Dude, at no point does everyone earn exactly the same amount of money regardless of what they do. Are you seriously just now finding out that some jobs pay more money than others?
The cameraman is worth less than a huge star, because the cameraman is more easily replaceable. If a cameraman asks for too much money, you let him walk because you can find another cameraman for cheaper. Will Smith, however, is NOT as easily replaceable. Even if you find another huge star, you also can't exactly replace Will Smith with Julia Roberts. There aren't as many Will Smiths as there are cameramen.
Doctors and sanitation workers are both extremely important in society. If there were no garbage men, disease would run rampant and you'd be buried in a mountain of your own filth. Still, garbage men are more easily replaceable than doctors. If a garbageman quits, you can find a replacement a lot more easily. By contrast, it takes YEARS of study and practice for a doctor to get to the point where he's ready to practice medicine. Doctors HAVE to get paid pretty well, or else it's not worth it to them to go through that training (hell, they'd be better off deciding to be garbagemen). And if there's a shortage of doctors, you can't just train some replacements in a few weeks. Yes, people are ABSOLUTELY worth more money depending on what they do. The idea that no one is worth more than anyone else is seriously some silly hippy nonsense.
Nobody has facts in this debate.KungfuKittenWell then it shouldn't be accepted as a truth.
I do that to the extend that i think is appropriate. More than half my income goes to the industry.[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.
Theokhoth
And do you think that money goes solely to producing things to which you have absolutely zero rights to? Wages are paid, buildings are built, equipment is bought, etc, etc. You're not entitled to whatever you want--period.
I highly doubt this claim anyway.
I have no idea what You're talking about but yes we are entitled to whatever we want the only limitations being the limited resources, which we translate to costs and try to regulate through laws and contracts and stuff. For example You are born free to speak whatever is on Your mind by nature, but since we are here we make it so that You cannot say whatever You want. There are no 'rights' only limitations. The 'rules' have absolutely no say and nothing to do with things of no value, such as pirated software that wouldn't have made them any money if it wasn't pirated. What i am saying is that there is such a huge proportion of enjoyed software out there that would disappear but would not generate profit, that it is unethical to rob those people of their fun for minor profit. That is the way it should be but as someone else pointed out we are living in capitalism where money rules, not ethics. And this is how it came to look 'right' for companies to stop piracy with whatever means to try get more profit. Companies can claim a whole lot of things but what they say is only important when it is threatening the peoples wants. It certainly isn't important enough to limit our freedoms (ISP policing or internet filters). If You disagree with this then let me know but i don't think we're going to agree on anything :P (but i still like You theokoth (and You too LJ)).
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]
Ow great the antipirate police has arrived. :roll:
Then give us a solution.KungfuKitten
Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.
I do that to the extend that i think is appropriate. More than half my income goes to the industry. Maybe even over 70%. Ah so denying me of more fun for no profit in return, or denying millions of fun because of a small profit margin (debatable) is legal, so we should do that? You think it's ok to steal because the prices are too high? You think others are obligated to give of their time, effort, and resources just to provide you with enterntainment for free? Sorry, but that's crap.Well then it shouldn't be accepted as a truth. Yep. That is why i think these debates are always so silly and we'll probably never ever get to a general GS agreement.[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]Nobody has facts in this debate.LJS9502_basic
Heck, I want to drive a porsche. Maybe I can just walk into a dealership and say, "Hey, you charge too much. You're infringing on my enjoyment of life" So I'm just going to give you 100$ and take that car over there.
I do that to the extend that i think is appropriate. More than half my income goes to the industry. Maybe even over 70%. Ah so denying me of more fun for no profit in return, or denying millions of fun because of a small profit margin (debatable) is legal, so we should do that? You think it's ok to steal because the prices are too high? You think others are obligated to give of their time, effort, and resources just to provide you with enterntainment for free? Sorry, but that's crap. Downloading software didn't involve any of their time, effort and resources so Your point is moot. You are again comparing piracy with stealing a phyiscal object.[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Understand that you're not entitled to everything you want and buy it legally.
sonicare
They put in their time effort and resources for the money they made(, and hopefully for making many people smile. I mean it would be a bit sad to just make something to make money).
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well then it shouldn't be accepted as a truth. Yep. That is why i think these debates are always so silly and we'll probably never ever get to a general GS agreement. Well on this issue we won't get a general agreement because people justify their behavior. Piracy is wrong. And while people do it.....they try to make excuses as to why it's not wrong. So a consensus cannot be met.[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]Nobody has facts in this debate.KungfuKitten
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"] I do that to the extend that i think is appropriate. More than half my income goes to the industry. Maybe even over 70%. Ah so denying me of more fun for no profit in return, or denying millions of fun because of a small profit margin (debatable) is legal, so we should do that?
You think it's ok to steal because the prices are too high? You think others are obligated to give of their time, effort, and resources just to provide you with enterntainment for free? Sorry, but that's crap. Downloading software didn't involve any of their time, effort and resources so Your point is moot. You are again comparing piracy with stealing a phyiscal object. That's such an incredibly weak argument. You're stealing. It takes literally hundreds of hours, tons of money and resources to produce a game. You think you can just steal that but because you download it from the net, that suddenly makes it ok? If you don't want to drop 60$ on a game, then dont get it. You aren't entitled to the work of others.You think it's ok to steal because the prices are too high? You think others are obligated to give of their time, effort, and resources just to provide you with enterntainment for free? Sorry, but that's crap. Downloading software didn't involve any of their time, effort and resources so Your point is moot. You are again comparing piracy with stealing a phyiscal object.[QUOTE="sonicare"]
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"] I do that to the extend that i think is appropriate. More than half my income goes to the industry. Maybe even over 70%. Ah so denying me of more fun for no profit in return, or denying millions of fun because of a small profit margin (debatable) is legal, so we should do that?
KungfuKitten
They put in their time effort and resources for the money they made(, and hopefully for making many people smile. I mean it would be a bit sad to just make something to make money).That is not true at all. The artist has to give of his time to create the work. The technology has to be used. Would it be okay for an employer not to pay a sales clerk or waiter for their tiime since they created no product? No.
Did you read that? The first sentence said it may boost sales and that a 19 percent said they are buying more music than they used to buy. Thus if they bought one song.....they bought more if they never purchased music in the past. Second, it's a fact that a free copy is a loss of revenue. Which means each pirated copy has decreased sales by that copy.;)[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
Perhaps you can first provide some evidence to support your claims? Piracy decreases sales? Really? I have yet to seen anyone but the music industy claim this. People who pirate and the buy things are in the minotiry? Any evidence to support that claim because this seems to disagree with that baseless assumption.
Evidence 1
Baseless assumptions 0
LJS9502_basic
Uhh I don't see how any of that refutes the claims made. Also the first sentence was "A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading file"
And even the RIAA doesn't claim one download = one lost sale anymore.
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well then it shouldn't be accepted as a truth.Yep. That is why i think these debates are always so silly and we'll probably never ever get to a general GS agreement. Well on this issue we won't get a general agreement because people justify their behaviour. Piracy is wrong. And while people do it.....they try to make excuses as to why it's not wrong. So a consensus cannot be met. Sneaky LJ :P Those are not excuses they are arguments. The people defending and opposing piracy are both the reason that a consensus cannot be met.LJS9502_basic
The missing link is that we don't know how many people are taking away sales compared to how many people are happy with how things are right now. If we had answers to that then it'd be much easier to say 'anything to oppose piracy' or 'let's just not make it too easy'. As long as we don't know this is just hopeless, it's even getting to me now.
Here is the first sentence...and I see the word may in there. Though the study is not actually scientific.Uhh I don't see how any of that refutes the claims made. Also the first sentence was "A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading file"
And even the RIAA doesn't claim one download = one lost sale anymore.
htekemerald
Hundreds of millions of songs may illegally trade hands online every month, but file swapping may actually be causing people to spend more money on music, according to a new research report.
Anyway from a business standpoint....and I have a business background....anything taken for free can be interpreted as a potential lost sale. The product is the song/cd in this case. Pirating it means no compensation was acquired for the use of the product. Just because something isn't physical does not mean it can not be illegally obtained.
They also get money for that work by people who do have money for it. I am not the only person in the world. There are just some works i personally don't have the money for, but i do still enjoy them. Of course they should be paid for their hard work. I was saying the download did not involve any work. Or at least i didn't know there was a little artist in my pc. >_> Pleaaaase we don't have to go through all this again do we? So You rather have that i don't enjoy their work and they don't get paid, just so You can feel happy to be richer than me? If that is the case You are very evil.
(Combo!)LJS9502_basic and sonicare
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Downloading software didn't involve any of their time, effort and resources so Your point is moot. You are again comparing piracy with stealing a phyiscal object.KungfuKittenThat's such an incredibly weak argument. You're stealing. It takes literally hundreds of hours, tons of money and resources to produce a game. You think you can just steal that but because you download it from the net, that suddenly makes it ok? If you don't want to drop 60$ on a game, then dont get it. You aren't entitled to the work of others. They also get money for that work by people who do have money for it. I am not the only person in the world. There are just some works i personally don't have the money for, but i do still enjoy them. Of course they should be paid for their hard work. I was saying the download did not involve any work. Or at least i didn't know there was a little artist in my pc. >_> Pleaaaase we don't have to go through all this again do we? So You rather have that i don't enjoy their work and they don't get paid, just so You can feel happy to be richer than me? If that is the case You are very evil.There are very few people in this world that can afford to buy everything they want. You prioritize what you most want and purchase that. Just because we like something doesn't mean we have the right to take it.
As an aside...why are your arguing with yourself? *is confused*
There are very few people in this world that can afford to buy everything they want. You prioritize what you most want and purchase that. Just because we like something doesn't mean we have the right to take it.[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]They also get money for that work by people who do have money for it. I am not the only person in the world. There are just some works i personally don't have the money for, but i do still enjoy them. Of course they should be paid for their hard work. I was saying the download did not involve any work. Or at least i didn't know there was a little artist in my pc. >_> Pleaaaase we don't have to go through all this again do we? So You rather have that i don't enjoy their work and they don't get paid, just so You can feel happy to be richer than me? If that is the case You are very evil.LJS9502_basic
Why not if it doesn't cost a thing? I like people to be happy and have many things.
Because people have a right to be compensated for their work. As with any other profession. They are just paid as a percent of sales. And not a flat fee. In addition, there are many non celebrity people that are involved in bring a movie or album to life. If the industry doesn't make a profit then people lose their job. And these are not wealthy people I am talking about. You are not just taking money from the "star".Why not if it doesn't cost a thing? I like people to be happy and have many things.
KungfuKitten
[QUOTE="legend26"]
so you are arguing that a human being is worth more then another based on their job...
MrGeezer
OF COURSE that's what I'm saying.
Dude, at no point does everyone earn exactly the same amount of money regardless of what they do. Are you seriously just now finding out that some jobs pay more money than others?
The cameraman is worth less than a huge star, because the cameraman is more easily replaceable. If a cameraman asks for too much money, you let him walk because you can find another cameraman for cheaper. Will Smith, however, is NOT as easily replaceable. Even if you find another huge star, you also can't exactly replace Will Smith with Julia Roberts. There aren't as many Will Smiths as there are cameramen.
Doctors and sanitation workers are both extremely important in society. If there were no garbage men, disease would run rampant and you'd be buried in a mountain of your own filth. Still, garbage men are more easily replaceable than doctors. If a garbageman quits, you can find a replacement a lot more easily. By contrast, it takes YEARS of study and practice for a doctor to get to the point where he's ready to practice medicine. Doctors HAVE to get paid pretty well, or else it's not worth it to them to go through that training (hell, they'd be better off deciding to be garbagemen). And if there's a shortage of doctors, you can't just train some replacements in a few weeks. Yes, people are ABSOLUTELY worth more money depending on what they do. The idea that no one is worth more than anyone else is seriously some silly hippy nonsense.
It doesn't always work like that though. Research scientists have to go through just as much education and training as physicians yet are paid a mere fraction of what a doctor makes (average starting pay for a biologist is about $54k; average starting pay for an anesthesiologist is $600k). It's not like scientists are easily replaced either. While there's no shortage of applicants for university faculty openings you have to look at the quality of the applicants. I mean, Princeton couldn't have easily replaced Einstein with another random physicist just like you can't replace Will Smith with any random actor, yet Einstein lived his whole life no richer than you or me while Will Smith collects ferraris like toy cars.
There are a lot more factors than "are you easily replaced" when it comes to the size of your paycheck. You also have to look at the economics of your job as well. In other words, how much money flows into your field determines how much money you get. Hence the reason why the CEO of a large corporation makes millions of dollars per year while the President of the United States gets about $400k per year.
It doesn't always work like that though. Research scientists have to go through just as much education and training as physicians yet are paid a mere fraction of what a doctor makes (average starting pay for a biologist is about $54k; average starting pay for an anesthesiologist is $600k). It's not like scientists are easily replaced either. While there's no shortage of applicants for university faculty openings you have to look at the quality of the applicants. I mean, Princeton couldn't have easily replaced Einstein with another random physicist just like you can't replace Will Smith with any random actor, yet Einstein lived his whole life no richer than you or me while Will Smith collects ferraris like toy cars.
There are a lot more factors than "are you easily replaced" when it comes to the size of your paycheck. You also have to look at the economics of your job as well. In other words, how much money flows into your field determines how much money you get. Hence the reason why the CEO of a large corporation makes millions of dollars per year while the President of the United States gets about $400k per year.
gameguy6700
Of course, but Einstein could have asked for more money. If he was totally willing to leave without a huge paycheck, then his employers would have to do one of two things...either decide that he's worth the extra money, or say that he's NOT worth it (if the money just isn't there) and let him walk.
It's nothing more than weighing the costs vs the benefits, and the "costs" can come in a lot of forms. It might be in the form of actual money, it might be in the form of good publicty and future endorsements, or it might be in the form of simply not affording to be without someone to fill that role.
Because people have a right to be compensated for their work. As with any other profession. They are just paid as a percent of sales. And not a flat fee. In addition, there are many non celebrity people that are involved in bring a movie or album to life. If the industry doesn't make a profit then people lose their job. And these are not wealthy people I am talking about. You are not just taking money from the "star". Huh? In the described situation i'm not taking money, there simply is no money to be given >_>[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]
Why not if it doesn't cost a thing? I like people to be happy and have many things.
LJS9502_basic
For them the choice is that i experience their creation or not. There is no sale in either case.
Not that i want to be ruined, but, You could, You know, attack me on a whole different front. Like, if You let it happen my way and people start thinking my way, they wouldn't all spend the money they want to spend on entertainment and then pirate what's left of interest. No, people aren't like that. Then some people will pay up front, but most people will first enjoy a game/music/movie before deciding whether they pay. Then You basically have a donation system, which might not generate enough money even though the whole world gets access to Your stuff, or it could be too unreliable for (example) developers of games to spend big budgets on.
So, the very least, piracy should not become completely standard, there should always be a certain opposition. And then You could say, that maybe it is nice for many people if some piracy exists but it should be restrained to certain proportions.
Then You already got that in Your pocket.
To keep it restrained we should take action. (Point to pc games.)
Then i would say, ok, but maybe with the carrot and not the stick? (Rewarding legal buyers.)
And maybe we could agree then.
Huh? In the described situation i'm not taking money, there simply is no money to be given >_> For them the choice is that i experience their creation or not. There is no sale in either case. Not that i want to be ruined, but, You could, You know, attack me on a whole different front. Like, if You let it happen my way and people start thinking my way, they wouldn't all spend the money they want to spend on entertainment and then pirate what's left of interest. No, people aren't like that. Then some people will pay up front, but most people will first enjoy a game/music/movie before deciding whether they pay. Then You basically have a donation system, which might not generate enough money even thought the whole world gets access to Your stuff, or it could be too unreliable for (example) developers of games to spend big budgets on. So, the very least, piracy should not become completely standard, there should always be a certain opposition.KungfuKittenDepends on your view. When a service is offered and one doesn't pay.....they haven't exactly take money in the physical sense...no. However, what they took was the compensation for the service. Not all jobs require one to be paid for a physical item. However, there are those jobs that pay for the time involved. In the case of say....a cd. There is both time...ie the creation of the song...and the technology used to record it. The industry also has to pay those who labor behind the scenes. Not just producers and engineers but all the other jobs involved....even janitors and secretaries. The money that the industry gets for selling the cd pays these people as well.
Depends on your view. When a service is offered and one doesn't pay.....they haven't exactly take money in the physical sense...no. However, what they took was the compensation for the service. Not all jobs require one to be paid for a physical item. LJS9502_basicThis is an implied contract...and enforceable under contract law -same as going in to get a haircut, then walking out without paying -you can say "he never said he was going to charge me, I just walked in and sat down"...but fortunately, the law does not work that way
what do you guys think about Pirating things that are 'no longer in print' so to speak...I think so too. No one's losing anything. (I might be wrong though)IMO things that are no longer available to the public through the patent/copyright holders should be free gamerawsavon
I've seen and read interviews and blogs of some of my favorite musicians admitting to and condoning illegal downloading. Chances are, unless you get rich off of your music (and few artists actually can) you couldn't care less about the money.Most of the time, downloaders want to spend more money on these bands anyways, and it widens the audience of the band.
I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
If music became really hard to steal I'd just listen to the radio/youtube more.
It's not free per se on the radio. The radio station is paying for you to listen.I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
hi_im_dave
[QUOTE="rawsavon"]what do you guys think about Pirating things that are 'no longer in print' so to speak...
IMO things that are no longer available to the public through the patent/copyright holders should be free game
I think so too. No one's losing anything. (I might be wrong though) NOTE TO MODS: Not saying i engage in said bahaviors, just speaking generally I just do not see the point in paying someone on ebay $150 for a game that cost $40 -I have no problem paying the developer/distributer.I've seen and read interviews and blogs of some of my favorite musicians admitting to and condoning illegal downloading. Chances are, unless you get rich off of your music (and few artists actually can) you couldn't care less about the money.Most of the time, downloaders want to spend more money on these bands anyways, and it widens the audience of the band.
Nintendevil
Are these musicians condoning the piracy of their music? Or just illegal piracy in general? Because I don't care whether or not Pearl Jam thinks that piracy helps them, that doesn't give them just cause to tell people to go out and pirate music by Foo Fighters.
Also, do these artists produce and distribute the music themselves? Because unless they control every single aspect of getting that music made and released, they don't have any business telling people to pirate music illegally. I mean, whoever owns the rights to music can surely just plain release their music for free. If Band X is actually in charge of deciding how much it gets sold for, then illegal piracy wouldn't even be an issue. If they wanted fans to get it for free, and were in a position to tell their fans to get it for free, then they'd man up and just plain release it legally for free. Hell, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails released music that could be obtained legally for free. They didn't say "this album costs $10, but I recommend that you download it illegally for $10." That's ****ed up.
I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
If music became really hard to steal I'd just listen to the radio/youtube more.
hi_im_dave
Though you do not have to pay anything to listen to the radio, they get their money by advertising. Additionally, the pay music licencing fee's to play the music, so in essence they are kind of paying for it even though the money doesnt go directly toward the artists.
Just say you stole the music... anyone who hasnt is probably lying. But your justification is FAIL.
I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
If music became really hard to steal I'd just listen to the radio/youtube more.
hi_im_dave
It's not free on the radio. It costs money to run a radio station, and that gets paid for. Either we're talking about those satellite radio stations that the consumer actually DOES pay to listen to. It's that, or we're talking about "free" radio, which is peppered with ads. Did you ever wonder why radio is full of so many advertisements? It's because THAT'S what pays for it.
[QUOTE="hi_im_dave"]
I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
If music became really hard to steal I'd just listen to the radio/youtube more.
Chrypt22
Though you do not have to pay anything to listen to the radio, they get their money by advertising. Additionally, the pay music licencing fee's to play the music, so in essence they are kind of paying for it even though the money doesnt go directly toward the artists.
Just say you stole the music... anyone who hasnt is probably lying. But your justification is FAIL.
No I've never stolen any music and I'm not lying. I'm not the only one either.....While that may be......are these bands compensating the employees involved in the creation of the music they are advocating illegal downloads?I've seen and read interviews and blogs of some of my favorite musicians admitting to and condoning illegal downloading. Chances are, unless you get rich off of your music (and few artists actually can) you couldn't care less about the money.Most of the time, downloaders want to spend more money on these bands anyways, and it widens the audience of the band.
Nintendevil
[QUOTE="Chrypt22"][QUOTE="hi_im_dave"]
I may or may not only pirate music. lol
My justification is that I listen to the radio 90% of the time. It is free there, so I don't see the big deal in listening to it for free on my Zune.
If music became really hard to steal I'd just listen to the radio/youtube more.
LJS9502_basic
Though you do not have to pay anything to listen to the radio, they get their money by advertising. Additionally, the pay music licencing fee's to play the music, so in essence they are kind of paying for it even though the money doesnt go directly toward the artists.
Just say you stole the music... anyone who hasnt is probably lying. But your justification is FAIL.
No I've never stolen any music and I'm not lying. I'm not the only one either.....Yeah, there are a few people out there that don't and I commend you for it. My point was that most people have at some point in their life... doesnt make it right.
(this is not directed at LJS) This is really plain black in white... if you did not receive a copy legally you stole it. Stealing is wrong, and no one likes it when something of yours is stolen. You can argue that you hate the price, the company, the game sucks, whatever... stealing is stealing and you cant justify it.
I hate Wal Mart and what it stands for, doesnt mean that I have the right to go in and start taking crap off the shelves. Even if I did, they still would make money... still doesnt make it right nor is there any justification to it
Piracy is not wrong. If something is good enough, people will always buy it. If I want to check out a band, I can _______ , and if I dislike it, I delete it and that is the end of it. End scenario: I don't have their IP product, and they don't deserve my money. If I do like it, then I will buy it, and the band deserves my money. What's that you say? Their are people that download, greatly like the product, but never pay the artist? I think that is bullcrap personally. I have known so many who pirate music, and they will ALWAYS at least buy a few things from their favourite bands. At the end of the day, the band gains a fan and revenue from a person who would not have previously been interesting in the band. Sure that evidence is anecdotal, but have recently read a study which concluded "music pirates" buy more music on average that a normal music fan. Mainly due to the circumstance where they can explore and find a great deal of stuff that they like. In the grand scheme of things, It is not wrong for that reason. The end justifies the means. I will personally guarantee you; no genuinely great band, game or movie will fail because of piracy.
For those that only buy legally, I have nothing against you. But you are not morally superior to me. Maybe in your own mind, but I feel no guilt. I have probably bought several thousands of dollars worth of music. Can't you see the big picture? How the hell DO the artists suffer from my acts?PerilousWolf
would like anti-piraters to address my post
I pirate all the time and I'm not ashamed of it. Most, if not all of the people here on a moral high horse who say they don't and they never have are probably lying. I'm not made of money. I also don't like being duped into buying crap by bought and paid for reviews.
When you grow up and mommy and daddy stop paying for everything, and you realize things aren't free, you'll understand why people pirate. Two games costs as much as my electric bill or a trip to the grocery store. I have bigger priorities than some silly pieces of media. Most of your money is just lining the pockets of some fatcat corporate CEO anyway, so it's not like I lose any sleep over it.
I buy legitimate copies of things too, when I can afford it, and when I want to reward the people who made something. But I have bills to pay, and I'd still like to be able to get some enjoyment out of life.
This post will probably get modded, but at least I'm being honest, unlike some other people.
I have no ambiguity about how I feel about pirating, despite the complexity of the issues it raises. I never pirate anything and I strongly dislike people who do. I'm continually amazed by the lame excuses people, especially adults, make to justify their pirating (guess what? you can't have everything - how'd you manage to not learn that as you learned those cold hard facts about how the world works and how things cost money?), but I'm not going to single anyone out here. I have also learned that some people who pirate often can simply not be reasoned with, because they have convinced themselves it isn't wrong. Perhaps some day when they actually have an artistic property of their own that they would like to profit from, they will have a very different take on it.
[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]
Piracy is not wrong. If something is good enough, people will always buy it. If I want to check out a band, I can _______ , and if I dislike it, I delete it and that is the end of it. End scenario: I don't have their IP product, and they don't deserve my money. If I do like it, then I will buy it, and the band deserves my money. What's that you say? Their are people that download, greatly like the product, but never pay the artist? I think that is bullcrap personally. I have known so many who pirate music, and they will ALWAYS at least buy a few things from their favourite bands. At the end of the day, the band gains a fan and revenue from a person who would not have previously been interesting in the band. Sure that evidence is anecdotal, but have recently read a study which concluded "music pirates" buy more music on average that a normal music fan. Mainly due to the circumstance where they can explore and find a great deal of stuff that they like. In the grand scheme of things, It is not wrong for that reason. The end justifies the means. I will personally guarantee you; no genuinely great band, game or movie will fail because of piracy.
For those that only buy legally, I have nothing against you. But you are not morally superior to me. Maybe in your own mind, but I feel no guilt. I have probably bought several thousands of dollars worth of music. Can't you see the big picture? How the hell DO the artists suffer from my acts?PerilousWolf
would like anti-piraters to address my post
I'll address your first point.Most people that have the opportunity to get something for free would rather that....than to pay. Particularly if there are no consequences. Yes....there are undoubtedly some that do buy some of the music. But there are many who do not. If people were only listening to a sample...which can be done without illegally downloading the music.....there would not be this problem with piracy. If you are listening to a bands music....they deserve payment whether you like the music or not. They have provided you the service.
Second point. You know SOME people that buy SOME of the bands music of illegally downloading. They are still not paying for the entire service the band provided.
Third point....the band gains a fan. If the fan is only ripping off their music....then that fan has zero importance in the grand scheme of the bands life. They have not paid for the product. They have not contributed toward the bands paying fan base from which ticket prices etc are calculated. If they have enough of these "fans"...the record label may drop them.
Fourth....I have the internet. I can legally explore any genre of music by a vast number of bands and decide which I wish to purchase...
For the answer to your final question....read my above answers. Your actions DO hurt the bands. Even established bands have to sell in order for their label to keep them signed.
Piracy is indeed wrong. And finding reasons to justify taking the work of another for free does not make it right.
and I strongly dislike people who do.albatrossdrums
what an immature position. Perhaps you should stop passing moral judgement on others and just try to worry about your own ethical dilemma's.
I have no ambiguity about how I feel about pirating, despite the complexity of the issues it raises. I never pirate anything and I strongly dislike people who do. I'm continually amazed by the lame excuses people, especially adults, make to justify their pirating (guess what? you can't have everything - how'd you manage to not learn that as you learned those cold hard facts about how the world works and how things cost money?), but I'm not going to single anyone out here.
albatrossdrums
I'm guessing mommy and daddy pay for your health insurance, groceries, electric, internet, rent/mortgage, school, clothes etc.
It's easy to be on a high horse when everything is handed to you, and probably the only things you do buy are games and movies.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment