• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sopa | pipa

yiddo2786 said:
While I completely get where you're coming from and think you have a point, it's not really comparable. Illegally downloading music does not cost a company anything except the chance of that downloader purchasing the record. When stealing a physical thing the owner no longer can use or sell the asset lost.
Click to expand...

ultimately you have to look at it as a revenue stream, not a physical object.
1 illegal download = 1 less sale = 1 less royalty for artist = anger of capitalist (record company) = reduction in revenue spent on musicians (that comes before they reduce profit margins) and redirected to "sure fire sales" (Jonas Bros et al)


on a seperate note; Justin Bieber became famous and got signed by posting videos of his singing covers on YouTube.......with SOPA all that content would potentially have been removed. Maybe it has merit after all!
 
monkeybarry said:
then if someone walks by your house, looks in your window, likes what you see then steals it, you can have no complaint
Click to expand...

As Yiddo said its not quite the same but in a way, yeah you're right. If the end and only result of this was ridding the world of free illegal downloads of music, movies and TV, then I don't think you can really argue against it.
 
Superted said:
As Yiddo said its not quite the same but in a way, yeah you're right. If the end and only result of this was ridding the world of free illegal downloads of music, movies and TV, then I don't think you can really argue against it.
Click to expand...

im in no way for SOPA or PIPA (which i think WILL get through as everyones energy has gone into stopping SOPA)
but do think some movement from both parties would acheive a lot.

the first move would have to come from the money men though as there is no incentive for anyone else apart from a sense of morality - and why martyr yourself when you know all the other said cares about is your buck
 
monkeybarry said:
then if someone walks by your house, looks in your window, likes what you see then steals it, you can have no complaint

as i said before, there needs to be a shift in morality from all parties - and that cant be legislated for, its a human disease not a political one
(note - im not trying to take some sort of moral highground here, simply saying what i feel needs to happen for a mutually acceptable outcome.)
Click to expand...

It's difficult to compare digital "property" with tangible items. Software, music, etc. can be propagated very easily at little to no cost. "Stealing" through torrents and what-have-you does not deprive someone else of that item. It simply enables you to acquire that item without paying for it.

Just so we're clear here, monkey, I don't think you're taking a moral high ground or anything like that. It's quite simple: piracy is wrong. Generally, we as consumers could voice our opposition to something through a boycott, and in the case of music, it was ridiculously high prices for albums. But the internet allows people to take that one step further and to actually procure whatever item they did not want to pay for.

Piracy hurts developers; not that they're poor and malnourished, cannibalizing each other in their offices. However, it might drive up prices for those that do purchase software legally. Fortunately, there are usually open-source/free alternatives for many popular software titles.

The only way to shift the general public's morality about taking from the internet is to make it impossible to do, or to fine you if you do it. Even if music albums started costing $5 instead of $10-15, people would still download them illegally if given the choice.
 
papaspur said:
It's difficult to compare digital "property" with tangible items. Software, music, etc. can be propagated very easily at little to no cost. "Stealing" through torrents and what-have-you does not deprive someone else of that item. It simply enables you to acquire that item without paying for it.
Click to expand...


that's the key difference
 
Senate Postpones Vote on Internet Anti-Piracy Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/senate-postpones-piracy-vote.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

Greed. That's what this is all about, pure and simple. I know corporations are not persons, despite the Citizens United ruling, but they do possess all the worst qualities of people. And we, as consumers, bare the brunt of capitalism's sins.
I don't mean to suggest that capitalism should be abolished, but it needs to be regulated so that we don't lose our inherent rights at the expense of greed.
 
scaramanga said:
Especially as in many cases the downloader wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would never pirate anything I had any intention of paying for. If it wasn't available I would just go without. The company selling the product would gain absolutely nothing by banning it, but they would lose the product reaching a wider audience.
 
FileSonic & FileServe have also closed up shop, essentially. They still are letting users download their own posted files, but that's about it. Self-imposed, so they must've been very shaky about their foundations. RapidShare is still confident, however.

Interesting post Howard. Will be following to see how this develops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back