Pirate Bay Trial
- Started
- Last post
- 103 Responses
- kelpie0
^ well that seems right and fair legally, as they don't provide ripping tools, just a network to distribute ripped goods.
This culture is giving the majors license to resist attempts to update to a model which in some ways may cost them, but will provide a much better 100% digital service that people want these days. That's what gets my goat about places like the pirate bay.
A pal of mine was helping project manage that legal P2P thing that Virgin was going to do and it was kiboshed due to protectionism on the part of the labels, but they are able to take this in-a-corner stance because piracy gives them justification. Unfortunately for them, that stance will eventually see them fuck up massively and only get on the bandwagon once others have come in with new models and cemented their ground there. I'm not sorry about that, at the very least some clever forward thinking people will be selling things to desperate record labels for a lot of money soon, and more power to them (mike ;)
- lukusW0
We're moving from an economic system based upon scarcity, to an economic system which I believe should be based around the provision of services. E.g. in my opinion, we shouldn't pay for the film -> we should pay for the system that gets the film to us.
I can't see how it's possible to use intellectual property as a cash cow - producing perpetual financial gain - without our financial systems turning to shit. Even if it is possible, I don't think it's fair to expect unlimited returns from a finite amount of effort and time.
- moth0
In my mind, the worst case scenario will be a tax at an ISP level - and you'll only have the file-sharing networks to blame for that.
The problem with it? The end-game is essentially is a two tier internet. Those who can afford it, and those who can't. Everyone will want a slice of ISP tax.
- moth0
And yeah. If that ISP thing happens, you can expect an awful lot of casualties.
- shinpo0
The internet was created to SHARE information from one person to another (ICQ, chat clients, email, websites, news.) This was the premise of the internet to share information from one spot to another without have to bring a *physical copy* to the point of interest.
Why do artists create material? Because they want others to see, feel, hear and experience their work. Do you think an upcoming artists in his teens makes movies in his spare time for money? No.
See we as humans all have the desire to share our creations. The internet has made that possible on a large scale. Yet, some people would say what about making money? Lets look at that.
In p2p sharing who is actually losing money? Not the artist, but the producers of cd's or the record companies. Being designers we all know artists and they make their money through concerts and the selling of their own merchandise. And while they do make some profit off of the sale of cd's it is the label that takes almost all of it.
Who helps the artists with their merchandise - designers do. But you can't go to a concert while sitting on your computer at home. So no matter how many people download artists cd's or whatever off of the internet, thereby causing the recording label to lose money - the artists and designers still make money because they do so in peoples *actual presence*.
- no, the artists remain broke and having to endlessly gig far more very year, just to earn a crust.kelpie
- there's a thread of right in what you're saying there but there is an awful lot of wrong that gets brushed asidekelpie
- small labels suffer massively as a result of piracy, and they re the ones supporting new music and doing right by artistskelpie
- "piracy" is a different thing from having convenient mechanisms on hand to get and serve media onlinekelpie
- and at the end of the day 90% of people defend piracy becuase it means they don't have to pay. bottom line, no matter what arguments some smart folks can see for a sharing culturekelpie
- perfectly valid arguments some smart folk can see for a sharing culturekelpie
- uh i am in a band on small label and I can tell you that we, as the band, do lose money, not just the label.theredmasque
- our current album is on a bunch of pirate p2p places in russia for example.theredmasque
- my last album i was able to take a small vacation off of $ earned. Not this year so far because the distros are going down.theredmasque
- erikjonsson0
its not worth paying for in the first place. like hitler said. if you cant guarantee your own safety in existance you dont deserve it.
- shinpo0
Here is a site that has 2 documentaries on p2p sharing and have some great information on it from both sides of the coin. It has been copyrighted by the owner and available to download so that you may actually steal the film.
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Par…
Both 1 and 2 are good, but the 2nd is better. The first mostly deals with the, "Pirate Bay" and the other with infringement and intellectual property. Check it out.
Most of the people here agree that most CEOs salaries are way to high plus top it off with huge bonuses and would probably all agree that it is wrong on some scale. Why does this not apply Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, Dave Matthews, Tim Burton and etc, etc? Those guys get paid hundreds of millions of dollars as well, but no one complains about that. We just don't want the automotive CEOs or the oil industry CEOs making that much money, but artists can make an obscene amounts and no one says a thing.
If one rule applies to one set of money makers it should apply to all. With that being said I believe that big name actors, directors, producers, and artists could take a pay cut.
Really it just boils down to the industry being behind the times. I personally belong to sites that have monthly memberships that allow me watch and listen to anything I want whenever I want. I can't download them, but I don't care as much about having it as I do about seeing or hearing it. This could be the ground that the industry could stand on. Until then - I say let the people download whatever they want for free since they have no alternative.
- moth0
"I say let the people download whatever they want for free since they have no alternative."
There's plenty of alternatives. You speak nonsense.
- winnie_the_shit0
Pirates would never have paid for it. They are a non-sale. They are nobody. They may as well not exist.
Trying to fight them is like sending a message to people..
"HEY CHECK IT OUT!! YOU CAN GET OUR STUFF FREE FROM THESE GUYS.. IT'S WRONG THO.. and Uh.. VERY BAD."
As if anyone living in this media age had a moral compass or an ounce of guilt left.
- juhls0
Companies will have to let people download whatever they want for a set fee every month or year. I know some already do this.
- lukusW0
It's not wrong to get it free...
It's wrong to make a film, invest a finite amount of money / time, and expect it to earn you money forever... it's completely fcking corrupt imo.
- thank youshinpo
- IP rights on media cease after a finite number of yearsmaximillion_
- juhls0
People steal using the medium of the Internet because it's free and accessible.
- It is stealing. You wouldn't do it outside of the Internet, would you? Perhaps they are different situations, but think about itjuhls
- about it.
P.S. I steal all the time.juhls - Using the argument, I've been "stealing" music since I was a kid with my tape recorder sitting by the radio speaker.blaw
- Then moved on to mix tapes, burn ya a copy cds, etc. I spend a bunch of money on music every year. What I want is an avenue where the money goes to the artist, not some asshole at a desk.blaw
- spend a bunch of money on ...avenue where the money goes to the artists, not some asshole at a desk.blaw
- < whoops. 'notes' error committed.blaw
- I agree with you, blaw. I think some definitions have to change as well.juhls
- I mean, I see both sides. I try to buy music whenever I can, but I will download just as many files.juhls
- shinpo0
But - juhls - it is not stealing and not the same thing outside of the internet. Think about it closely.
1. Someone buys a cd - actually pays for it.
2. They upload it to the interwebs.
3. Someone else downloads it.
4. Now there are two copies.So in actuality, the person who downloads it actually produces another copy thereby expanding the merchandise without have to pay people to produce a physical copy.
In essence they are helping the industry by cutting down the costs of production.
Here is another point. If you had a pound of pure gold and I had the power to replicate it would that be stealing from the earth? I mean the earth didn't make that gold and all I did was copy it, but you wouldn't complain about that would you?
Another un-sci fi example. We clone human embryos. They don't make new ones, but clone ones that are already there. Is that stealing? It is the same principle. Except a human life is more valuable than intellectual property - IMO. What about the sheep they cloned? There was already an original and yet they saw fit to make another copy of something that already existed.
The thing it boils down to MONEY. Always has, always will. Please download the documentary on infringement and intellectual property from here and then form an opinion. http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Par…
- Your argument reduces the value of the item in question. You don't give away source files for your work, do you?blaw
- moth0
lukusW. That's actually the single most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on the internet.
You should twitter it.
Here it is again in case anyone missed it:
"It's wrong to make a film, invest a finite amount of money / time, and expect it to earn you money forever... it's completely fcking corrupt imo."
Wow.
- kelpie0
" It's not wrong to get it free...
It's wrong to make a film, invest a finite amount of money / time, and expect it to earn you money forever... it's completely fcking corrupt imo. "
how is it fucking corrupt?? where do you get this sense of entitlement to other people's hard work?
admit it, you just don't like paying for stuff, that is the full 100% complete reality here, and you are trying to justify that with bullshit philosphical nonsense on the nature of "ownership of art". Sad.
- shinpo0
Please understand that I am not saying intellectual property has no value and shouldn't be paid for, but I am trying to say that the suit being filed against The Pirate Bay is weak and erroneous and should be thrown out seeing as The Pirate Bay has actually done nothing wrong in the matter.
If someone has a porche and I point out to my friend the house in which they keep it then he steals it am I at fault?
That is all The Pirate Bay has done - point to what is available. They also have un copyrighted material available from their site.
- If you tell your friend, "this dude has a Porche, the garage is unlocked and here's how to hotwire it," you are.blaw
- Not picking you, btw. Just a lot of bad analogies in this thread.blaw
- Shinpo has a point.imakethepictures
- ukit0
These ideas about intellectual property are not set in stone. Think about the drug industry. After a certain amount of time, the patent runs out and everyone is free to sell the product.
- lukusW0
moth: basically, this problem is going to be raised again and again over the next ten / twenty years.
We've had a society which values things based on scarcity (ie. supply and demand - if a resource is scarce you have you pay more for it). This obviously doesn't work with digital things -> simply because they can be copied at little to no cost.
So, we go through a period when the old economics is copied and applied to digital goods -> but this can't be sustained.
Traditionally corporations use Intellectual Property as a kind of cash-cow. It's this that I find corrupt, because they're exploit us (as consumers) as well as the people who produce the work. Once the distribution costs are reduced down to near zero, I think the whole process seems even more corrupt.
My view might seem extreme to you, but I don't think it's totally ridiculous.
- winnie_the_shit0
I think trying to pin down the morality of the issue is stupid.
Piracy is a fact, not a moral issue.
- ukit0
Someone explain to me why we should be prosecuting Pirate Bay and not Rapidshare. Or Google for that matter.
Where do we draw the line? Is it because they have Pirate in the name? Cause that is not a very solid argument IMHO