|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let us suppose that the professional artists who record the songs get paid, say 2000€ a month for their work and the songs they have produced are released to the public. That sounds like an idea I could stand for. 
Well 2000 euros sounds a lot at least in comparison to the average salary here. A chemical engineer gets less than that.
Quote:
But where would the money come from? Just giving the music away doesn't sound like a very good business move for possible funders. Perhaps a charity or the taxpayers.
A funding-based model would be much more appropriate in my opinion.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because you live of society. Where do you get food, clothes, homes, every other thing you own (propably)? From money. Money is "pure" society. And by deniying people succes in society, you're denying society and should not benefit from it. Which you obviously do. That would make you something similiar to a parasite. Only in this particular subject.
Start by yourself then. Don't spare money. Buy every product you can. You know how well it boosts the market, don't you? Unless you want to be a parasite.
...
Weird logic, tbh.
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:28 PM |
|
Edited by Cepheus at 23:29, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Why don't you tell the same to people who don't want to buy shoes of a near-bankrupting company? And write "those are bad shoes"
It would certainly do much good to that company.
Er, weren't you pointing out on the first page that answering statements on intangible products using analogies with tangibles is a no-no?
Now, your argument hinges on the reverse, yet there is a difference between doing nothing and illegally downloading. Let me try and convey this mindlessly basic general concept with an ambiguous example.
If you don't buy it, you've done no harm. Nobody's going to imitate you, because you've got nothing more than what you started with. However, if you steal illegal download it, you now have the product at no cost to you, and you now engender more of the same among those around you who want the product.
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:30 PM |
|
|
Yes, I have it. Nope, it's not any difference to the producer whether I have the illegal copy or not. Not even a single bit of difference.
yet I'm considered a criminal.
That's what I don't understand.
OK guys, it's late, goodnight, I hope there will be some feisty arguments awaiting me tomorrow. 
And I used the example here for the market situation, not the illegal download justification/condemnation. I asked not to do the latter, if possible. in other words, I don't want it condemned based on snowy examples like "it could've been a ferrari". No, it could not have been. Period.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, if you steal illegal download it, you now have the product at no cost to you, and you now engender more of the same among those around you who want the product.
This assumes people are "potential buyers". I don't think I need to point out why this is fail.
Well rather I'll do it, here:
An unborn child, fetus or not even conceived yet, is a potential life.
We don't breed as fast as we can, therefore, potential lives are lost because of us.
We're all murderers. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:34 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:38, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Why of course [quality has a bearing on the success of a product]. I'm asking what correlation it has with the discussion and the problem I underlined?
I don't see a connection. The (2) and (3) are still the same, despite how good or bad the product is.
No they're not, as I explained above.
But let me back up and ask you this:
Why is stealing (generally) illegal?
(EDIT: Btw, I'm not trying to trap you into anything, so don't overthink it. Ignoring the present conversation: why has society deemed that stealing should be illegal? If I go into Best Buy and steal a CD off the shelf, why should I be punished for that?)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not following your argument. If the IT industry was boosted, how is that different than Microsoft? You can pirate both. It has nothing to do with the country (unless the IT industry is owned by the state, but that's not the case here).
Imagine that many of the Microsoft programmers wouldn't have been employed in the first place (many of whom romanians).
It has to do with that the employees of the company are from outside of Romania. You have a gaming company in England create a product, and then a bunch of Romanians pirate it. The Romanians gain enjoyment and skills in the process, and the employees in England gain nothing. One side benefits at another sides expense, as opposed to legal exchanges, where both sides benefit by trading for what they want. It's a parasitic relationship rather than a symbiotic one. Obviously it rocks for the parasite, but it's not so great for the host.
If Romania had started off with many various software companies, and they were trying to sell their products to Romanians, your theory that piracy is good wouldn't be so swell, because there would be Romanian employees facing the consequences, as opposed to various victims from abroad being deprived the fruits of their labor.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Start by yourself then. Don't spare money. Buy every product you can. You know how well it boosts the market, don't you? Unless you want to be a parasite.
Off course I can't. And besides, (edited the post), it is more like denying the succes in society. By doing that you will make it impossible for people to earn money. If every body copied everything, no one would ever earn any money. This only occurs with data though, since you can't copy material in the same way.
I should how ever buy all the products I support. Success is measured in money, which you gain by being popular or having a popular product. By bying all the products (or as many as I can) I will drive society in the direction I want it. If every one does that society would be controlled by the people. Thing is the people don't have the money to do it.
Any way, by downloading, you rob them of their popularity. Of their support from you, that you obviously would have shown them if you didn't download. In that sense you are stealing. You gain something, they lose something. And you don't pay.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It has to do with that the employees of the company are from outside of Romania. You have a gaming company in England create a product, and then a bunch of Romanians pirate it. The Romanians gain enjoyment and skills in the process, and the employees in England gain nothing. One side benefits at another sides expense, as opposed to legal exchanges, where both sides benefit by trading for what they want.
"legal exchanges" apply within a country as different countries may have different policies on artificial prices where you do not deprive the owner (in effect, you don't have to fight over the owner or go to England and forcefully take it from him, you simply copy something from a romanian -- who probably bought it).
However, they wouldn't have bought the product in the first place since they have other things to spend their money on, like food for instance. 10 years later Romania would have still been in that situation.
Now, their skills improved because of piracy, it bloomed, and probably will improve their situations, meaning that they may have more money this time -- money which can be used to purchase stuff. Yes even from England (not necessarily IP stuff).
Next you're going to tell me how first-world countries benefit from starving children in Africa being in that position? And being terribly hurt if those kids could get food for free?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If every body copied everything, no one would ever earn any money.
You can't copy services.
Quote:
Any way, by downloading, you rob them of their popularity.
Piracy boosts popularity and recognition. An independent artist can now become popular without signing a contract with a major label.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"legal exchanges" apply within a country as different countries may have different policies on artificial prices where you do not deprive the owner (in effect, you don't have to fight over the owner or go to England and forcefully take it from him, you simply copy something from a romanian -- who probably bought it).
However, they wouldn't have bought the product in the first place since they have other things to spend their money on, like food for instance. 10 years later Romania would have still been in that situation.
Now, their skills improved because of piracy, it bloomed, and probably will improve their situations, meaning that they may have more money this time -- money which can be used to purchase stuff. Yes even from England (not necessarily IP stuff).
Oh, so once they have more money, they're suddenly going to start purchasing stuff instead of taking it? :roll eyes:
It sounds like you're just pointing out one indirect benefit of piracy and using it to justify its practice.
Quote:
Next you're going to tell me how first-world countries benefit from starving children in Africa being in that position? And being terribly hurt if those kids could get food for free?
And yet if this reasoning were applied universally, the 1st world would very quickly no longer be the 1st world. And actually yes: an overabundance of foreign aid can and has caused a lot of problems for Africa. No-interest lending, or microlending, is a much better solution for developing countries that doesn't sterilize the local economy by flooding it with free consumer goods.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:52 PM |
|
Edited by Cepheus at 23:52, 24 Nov 2009.
|
If you're some sort of incredible hermit or pragmatist who will never share your computer, never reveal you've ever owned the game to anyone, never boast about paying nothing for it and genuinely would/could not have bought the thing despite your interest, then indeed you too have done no real harm.
But you, Doomforge, are an individual who does not represent all software pirates. I don't know if you're advocating piracy or just looking into a scenario where you'd need to defend yourself from lawyers. If the latter, until you've been hit with a subpoena or convicted by a judge, then it's all just theorycraft, isn't it?
And as I point out, no court can just take your word for it.
Quote:
This assumes people are "potential buyers". I don't think I need to point out why this is fail.
No, well spotted, it is not very reasonable to assume everyone every minute is watching your monitor as you scream loudly "I GOT THIS GAME WITHOUT PAYING, LOL HAXX0R".
The hypothetical court who would convict you for software piracy must assume this, though, as some people are or may be watching you and spreading the word, and that's enough to deny profit and damage the industry.
Along this reasoning, if you were to hypothetically grab the nearest CD, wave it around in the air grinning and walk out of the shop with it in hand, guards oblivious, I imagine a few - maybe not all, a few - people might just stop and wonder "why does he get away without paying?"
To do no harm the resource would need to be infinite (downloads) and you would need to be incredibly subtle... in which case you'd get away with it anyway, so the whole scenario is bogus!
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:00, 25 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Oh, so once they have more money, they're suddenly going to start purchasing stuff instead of taking it? :roll eyes:
I don't know, I'm glad at least that my situation isn't as bad as it would have been if I lived 10 or more years ago (and I'm talking only about the piracy-thing that boosted the economy).
But I guess sick people like you prefer others to live in poverty when you can aid them for free. Just to have someone to compare with and feel superior.
If YOU feel the way you do, no one stops you from giving all your income to a game company should you wish to do so -- and you may not be the only one. Similarly, my point is, when you have money, you have more choices.
Also keep in mind that people don't print money. If they don't spend money on something they will spend it on something else. If they spend money on music they can't spend the same amount on hardware, for instance, so hardware producers would suffer. (and they damn as hell as underpaid compared to software devs and the risks/distribution costs comparison)
Oh and since capitalism and the free market are probably your arguments, let me remind you that you want to RESTRICT what some people can do, by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. (that is, not to use their computers to copy that). Not very "free" market I might add.
Quote:
And yet if this reasoning were applied universally, the 1st world would very quickly no longer be the 1st world. And actually yes: an overabundance of foreign aid can and has caused a lot of problems for Africa.
WTF are you talking about. That's just sick. If by "first world" you mean "I'm better than my neighbor" then I don't know what to say. 
How can they not be first world anymore if the STARVING kids get it for free? Except that, you know, they can boast and compare to them suckers that they have expensive food and stuff.
I'm ignoring what you said about foreign aid because YET AGAIN you are speaking bullocks. All the "foreign aid" required in this statement would be to give them a prototype food, then they'll copy it themselves. That's what happens with piracy. Pirates don't ask the original distributor to make copies for them for free.
How many times do I need to go over the same points over and over again?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
WTF are you talking about. That's just sick. If by "first world" you mean "I'm better than my neighbor" then I don't know what to say.
I don't invent the terms. Stop trying to spin my words to make me an elitist. 1st world = places with a certain standard of living, but you already knew that.
Quote:
How can they not be first world anymore if the STARVING kids get it for free? Except that, you know, they can boast and compare to them suckers that they have expensive food and stuff.
An overabundance is a legitimate problem because it prevents local businesses from sprouting up. It's creates long-term issues where the region is perpetually dependent on outsiders, which is a ****ty way to live. No, I don't think starving kids should be denied food.
Quote:
I'm ignoring what you said about foreign aid because YET AGAIN you are speaking bullocks. All the "foreign aid" required in this statement would be to give them a prototype food, then they'll copy it themselves. That's what happens with piracy. Pirates don't ask the original distributor to make copies for them for free.
That's because in the case of food, most of the cost is derived from the product itself. With software, most of the cost is derived from the labor. Either way, you're cheating employees out of their profits.
Quote:
How many times do I need to go over the same points over and over again?
Until I fall asleep, because once I'm unconscious I won't be able to detect the gaping hole that is your logic.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If YOU feel the way you do, no one stops you from giving all your income to a game company should you wish to do so -- and you may not be the only one. Similarly, my point is, when you have money, you have more choices.
Also keep in mind that people don't print money. If they don't spend money on something they will spend it on something else. If they spend money on music they can't spend the same amount on hardware, for instance, so hardware producers would suffer. (and they damn as hell as underpaid compared to software devs and the risks/distribution costs comparison)
Yes, it's assumed that they're going to spend the same amount of money either way. They're not going to steal a game and then burn the money that it normally would have costed. But you're still depriving certain employees from their labor, and that means they're wasting resources for something that otherwise would have made more money than it did. The market can correct itself when people purchase things legally, but when you have several million parasites tapping into the system, it becomes more unpredictable and risky.
Quote:
Oh and since capitalism and the free market are probably your arguments, let me remind you that you want to RESTRICT what some people can do, by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. (that is, not to use their computers to copy that). Not very "free" market I might add.
That's nice, but what you suggest would make me an anarchist. Every capitalist supports the government's crucial role in protecting property. Capitalism = / = Anti-government
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't invent the terms. Stop trying to spin my words to make me an elitist. 1st world = places with a certain standard of living, but you already knew that.
Apparently you have a problem with less developed countries getting developed though. No, look at my post regarding the foreign aid again, re-read it at least 100 times until you get it.
If Romania didn't exist, they wouldn't have had profits anyway from Romanian non-existent buyers, so does that mean that the non-existent thief stole from them?
If it's theft, it's surely a weird definition to say that something non-existent can do it.
Quote:
That's because in the case of food, most of the cost is derived from the product itself. With software, most of the cost is derived from the labor.
I'm not following you, obviously both have labor. What the latter don't have, though, is people making copies themselves (that is, NO EXPENSE for such copies on the makers) out of it.
Quote:
Either way, you're cheating employees out of their profits.
Says who?
Condoms are cheating children out of their existence too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But you're still depriving certain employees from their labor
/facepalm
Quote:
Every capitalist supports the government's crucial role in protecting property. Capitalism = / = Anti-government
I don't see what property has to do with it. I buy your music, I copy it, give it to my friend. At which point have I stole something from you? At which point have I forcefully took away something you own and, in effect, made you in a worse situation?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:18 AM |
|
Edited by veco at 20:50, 26 Nov 2009.
|
Recently I stumbled upon a very interesting information.
A band called Radiohead released it's new album in the torrent network (there is also a link to it on their site) yet in the first week after the premier they sold 122k CDs which was branded a huge success.
Now, the thing is, there will always be those who won't stop downloading even if they had the money but that's not the case with most. If I think something is really good, I but it (hence picking out the 'quality' on the market) and if not - I don't. The fact that I can download it without any cost gives me a wider, not restricted by my cash, view on what I want. In this scenario I'm paying exactly for the product, not in general, hoping for the item to be as good as last time.
As a comparison - I go to a bookstore, pick a book, order some cofee and read it. Nobody bothers me about it and if I like it - I but it.
And if a company insists on me paying before I know the quality then I want a non-problematic refund if I didn't like the game.
Consumers today aren't isolated from each other like in the old console days, where you bought a game and knew if it was good only after you brought it home. Now they know everything about the product and it will stay that way.
I bought CoD Modern Warfare 1 when it was released, I enjoyed it very much, so when CoD World at War came out - I rushed to the store once more. But it wasn't anywhere near that good. could I give it back? No. How about 75%? Still no, I'm stuck with it although I never played it more than the campaing. And now I'm thankful I didn't but Modern Warfare 2 because I know I won't play it more anyway.
Buying CDs with music is also a pain. You can't copy them to the computer so I can't have it on my mp3 player. So even though I buy the CD I still have to download the mp3 files from the internet. Or should I pay for the same thing twice?
Recently my Battlefield 2 DVD started to crack in the middle. Can I copy it? No. So I downloaded it from a torrent site, just used the original CD-Key.
Is what I'm doing wrong? I certainly don't feel that way, I'm just cautious about what I spend my money on.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:30 AM |
|
|
This topic have gone too far, for me to start replying.
I can however, as I think it's more or less the point of the topic, post my opinion on the matter.
In my humble opinion, intellectual property does not exist, you cannot own an idea and claim rights to it, if anyone have the means to copy it, they should do so without any society applied consequences.
However, if no such thing exists, how about the authors of these strings of information in the first place, if they try to mass produce and distribute for high profit, they'll end up with everyone just easily copying their great work, and if they try to go from door to door and make it so complex that it'll require an equal or higher amount of work to actually make the copy worth it, then the profit would be diminishing rapidly and it'd not be worth it in the first place.
My solution, and the future I believe we're going towards, is very simple really, I believe that with the modern technology, the middle man, i.e. the companies you sign with who distributes, are not needed anymore.
Any artist can distribute, and should do so with the program the artist chooses, but if all programs are giving away these information strings freely, why should the artist be productive in the first place? Because the people behind the programs will pay the artist for making the program more popular, due to it having more quality (more people interested in using this program).
How should the people behind the program be able to pay the artist? Through commercial money I believe.
The thing is that popularity will rise with quality programs, quality programs you get if you pay for the quality productivity from the artist, but via letting the programs go for free, the competition will be about popularity, and those who've the best programs will be the ones who people will use.
Then the popularity will attract companies who sell "real" services, who can pay for advertising in these programs.
All in all, the artists gets payed, the people behind the programs can (but in the long run, most likely these people will be the artists themselves) earn something through this mean, the companies will get part of the popularity derived from a completely different media, and the people get what they want for free, at least what these kind of information strings are concerned.
The modern companies can do this, and I've seen examples of some who've started, but those who've started have so far quickly been forced to stop, because artists of said work have signed contracts with other companies, which means that the rights to these information strings belongs to several different companies and may not be sold for a non-competing price, which free pretty much is.
In the long run, I believe people will realise that not only won't this last, but it's also the wrong approach, it's limiting many for the sake of few, who does not have this right in the first place by any means, except they paid the artist in the first place.
If I want a ferrari, I build it from the bottom and up (via machinery normally used for mass production, but if you like, you can imagine me fiddling in the garden with lots of car stuff), but I do not use their brand nor their name, does that make me a thief?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I buy your music, I copy it, give it to my friend. At which point have I stole something from you? At which point have I forcefully took away something you own and, in effect, made you in a worse situation?
You never stole in that situation. But from then your friend is illegally owning a labor product thus he is the thief. You can do whatever you want with something you own.
@To all: the day (IF...) when you will work and produce ideas, artworks, anything intellectual as principal JOB, you will get pissed if someone owns it without paying not because you did not get any money for it, but more from being tortured by the idea that YOUR hard and long work is considered as free, thus worth nothing, zero, nada. This is enough to bring down your creativity.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
