Printable View
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...ttorrent_site/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5892.cfm
So far, I've read that Supernova.org, Torrentbits, Phoenix Torrents, Youceff Torrents and ISO Hunt have all been shut down in a matter of a couple of days.
*is so sad* :(
I am traumatized.
More on it...
http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/...nova-shutdown/
And posts and comments here: http://www.livejournal.com/community/suprnova_love/
EDIT: http://www.torrentz.com/ - Possibly the next to be gone, although it currently only says "Temp Offline - Kernel Panics"
What a pain. At least Mandee got a lot of good stuff before it happened. And I dont think they'll shut down the sites I really really care about, the smaller once that subtitle obscure Japanese and Taiwanese titles (obscure in America at least).
This totally sucks. I loved using Suprnova to download episodes of Lost and other television shows.
They're going to reappear in a matter of weeks. Plus, they can't shut down the torrent network since it's all done through PCs.
Yeah, apparantly they're really cracking down on it all.
The whole torrent thing can't be killed, but it will be harder to track down the actual .torrent files without portals like Suprnova.
Yeah it just makes everyones life more difficult. damn them.
Heres a alternate site to suprnova.org. :D
www.torrentspy.com
suprnova.org was working as of last night. Looks like I was just in time. If these sites die, then they'll reopen in countries where these laws don't apply. Also I've read about a version of bittorrent which works like kazaa or other networks, where there is essentially no central server.
So long as the internet exists in its current form, where everyone on the network is a potential server, then p2p can't be stopped. I could write my own p2p software in a day, and it'd work; might not be popular, might not work well, but it'd work.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but aren't these sites illegal?
If so, good riddance. I know many of you don't have the luxury of a job to be able to pay for some of the stuff. I'm shocked and disappointed there hasn't been one poster who supported this raid.
Again, if all of this is legal(I didn't bother reading the links), then excuse my ignorance. But real fans don't drive these creators out of business by illegal downloads.
Yes they are illigal, like P2P client. The only things I ever download are games they are really hard to find such as suikoden I and II, right now I'm getting .HACK//sign becasue I hunted for hours yesterday with no luck at ever store in my eare to find it. I would much rather own a legal copy of things then to download them.
Okay. Now that they're illegal, why are people crying about it? You can always get it on eBay. They usually have these types of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
I'm even surprised Unne is in on this. I thought he was king of morals.
Illegal doesn't equal immoral. They did deserve to be shut down though, yeah. No one could say they didn't have it coming to them. At the same time, I don't think piracy will ever be stopped. I doubt it'll even be significantly slowed by this kind of thing.
suprnova.org hosted plenty of non-illegal things too. For example I downloaded an old book about teaching yourself Latin, and some Linux stuff. bittorrent does have legal uses.
I won't pretend I didn't also download things illegally. Right now I'm downloading some Monty Python episodes. I watched the episodes on TV, and it was legal. I could've taped them onto VHS, and it would've been legal. I'm downloading them to my computer, and it's illegal. If I'd taped them on VHS and somehow input them to my computer via video-in, would that be legal? Maybe not legal; would it be moral? The legality of this kind of thing isn't something that's clearly defined, to me, let alone the morality. This is something we're still trying to figure out as a society.
But yeah, some things on those sites are blatantly illegal and blatantly immoral to download, and I probably downloaded some of those too. I am not the king of morals.
I didn't mean that everything illegal was immoral, but it's like you said you admitted to downloading illegal files and you have the funds to purchase the material that's illegally downloaded, that's what I referred to as immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I'm guilty of that myself...at least in the past. It didn't take me long to delete my stolen files when I had contracted a virus. I know that it's tough for some people who don't have a lot of money or any money to not be tempted to just download whatever they can find, but it doesn't make it right.
The thing that shocks me most is that on my LJ Friend's list and this forum is that no one feels the least bit of sympathy for the creators.
I feel sorry for them I mean they were helping people get things iin illigal was but still, I think the governments and such take this a little too far. The game companies, music and movies still make lots of money. Sometimes more then they desreve.
There's no doubt the distribution of wealth is sometimes socially unfair. The best way to combat this in a moral and legal way is to not buy their products. Lord knows I don't anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
And when I meant creators, I meant creators of the animes and shows people illegally download. At least I think that's what you're referring to I hope.
I don't think gov't takes this too far. Because so much tax dollars come from these entertainment businesses, they have to. Not only tax dollars, but these businesses do help a country move along. Entertainment is almost a trillion dollar industry, the gov't should take steps like these to stop illegal activity.
But yeah, I realize that piracy will somehow find a backdoor. If this was me 2 years ago, my reaction would've been disgusted, not almost joyous.
Whether you have the money to buy things isn't relevant to whether or not it's moral to steal it. If you're starving on the street, it's still immoral to steal a loaf of bread. It's just as immoral for a poor person to download something from a bittorrent site as it is for a rich person.
I own every Weird Al Yankovic album (except one or two) in existence, on cassette tape, which is completely useless to me at this point. Is it illegal or immoral for me to download those songs onto my computer? How many times do I have to pay for something before it's no longer immoral? I sometimes listen to music on the radio. Is it immoral to listen to the same music on my computer in MP3 format? I can go to the library and read a book for free. Why can't I do the same for music or movies?
I don't think that people who sing songs or make movies have a right to the amount of money they make. Musicians aren't starving on the streets; they're living in solid-gold houses with solid-gold cars and cyborg maids (probably). Even if p2p sharing of songs hurts artists (not sure that it does), I don't really care. I don't think they have any right to the amount of money they make. In terms of "hurt", I think that taking $13 from a person who does nothing I'd consider "work" who makes more money in one day than I make in one year isn't as bad as most other things I could think of. I don't think that the music and/or movie industry behaves morally; they've been convicted in the past of price-fixing, for example. Same goes for a few software companies I could think of. I think they outright abuse the law in many cases.
I don't think that the concept of computer data as "property" is entirely defined. A song stored on a computer is just a very very large number in binary. How can someone own the copyright to a number? If I tell someone the number, how am I stealing anything? Copyright law in this country (or maybe this planet) is currently all but insane.
None of that is a legal justification for p2p sharing of files. But it's something to think about. Musicians and actors still exist and are still filthy stinking rich. I think downloading copyrighted files from the internet is way, way down low on my list of immoral acts.
I'll quote my 10th grade history teacher: "No law has ever survived in this country when a majority of people opposed it". A majority of people think that downloading stuff for free is fine. I rather think it is too. The law should reflect that. One could perhaps view music and other forms of art as belonging to our society, as part of our culture. Imagine if someone owned the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday". Oh, wait. Someone does.
The difference is that stealing files don't make you live any longer. Stealing for hunger is much different, and I consider it somewhat moral if it's a last resort, I.E.: if their family desperately needed food and money could not be made in time to feed them before they die. Morality doesn't have a target, it affects everyone rich or poor. Just because you're not rich enough to buy something doesn't mean you should steal it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
The difference is that the artists send out samples of their music in hopes you will buy their music. Samples is what gets them noticed. It's like sampling food at a grocery store. As long as the artists allow it, it's legal. Besides, you only pay for songs and movies once as I recall.Quote:
I own every Weird Al Yankovic album (except one or two) in existence, on cassette tape, which is completely useless to me at this point. Is it illegal or immoral for me to download those songs onto my computer? How many times do I have to pay for something before it's no longer immoral? I sometimes listen to music on the radio. Is it immoral to listen to the same music on my computer in MP3 format? I can go to the library and read a book for free. Why can't I do the same for music or movies?
However, when you listen to songs on the radio, those songs are paid for by advertisers. When you listen to them on a computer, they're not. The books in the library are free because they're paid for by the public. The reason why most music and movies are illegal is because a lot of money goes into making them. Stealing them would completely put these people out of business.
Yes, many people don't deserve the money they have. The distribution of wealth will probably never be socially equal. If you hate them so much, don't download their products. It's a compliment to them that you admire their work, even though you download it illegally. And just because the music industry or any other industry behaves immorally, doesn't justify anyone to do the same. But you should put yourself in their position. It's like our debate some months earlier, you see through almost completely biased eyes. What's "work" to you might seem like a walk in the park to someone else. It's all relative. Taking $13 from someone might not hurt, but do that a couple of thousand times and all of the sudden it does hurt.Quote:
I don't think that people who sing songs or make movies have a right to the amount of money they make. Musicians aren't starving on the streets; they're living in solid-gold houses with solid-gold cars and cyborg maids (probably). Even if p2p sharing of songs hurts artists (not sure that it does), I don't really care. I don't think they have any right to the amount of money they make. In terms of "hurt", I think that taking $13 from a person who does nothing I'd consider "work" who makes more money in one day than I make in one year isn't as bad as most other things I could think of. I don't think that the music and/or movie industry behaves morally; they've been convicted in the past of price-fixing, for example. Same goes for a few software companies I could think of. I think they outright abuse the law in many cases.
And just because one person does it doesn't mean it hurts the artists. It spreads like a disease. If one person litters, then almost always someone else does the same and so on. Then all of the sudden the parks are completely filthy. All these little things add up. That's why laws fine people $500 if they litter even one thing. I support whatever stringent law the gov't passes to protect these artists and authors.
You can say the same thing about a car. A car are just a group of atoms combined together. Atoms are everywhere, so what makes some atoms more special than others? I don't think what you're saying is really right, it's even outrageous. It's like me writing FAQs. Yes, it's all just binary on a computer. But if someone made money off my guides, I would be extremely angry. You just don't know how it's like until you're on the other side. Without copyright laws, creativity would plummet. You wouldn't have a computer if it wasn't for copyright laws. No one would create anything if they couldn't get some profit from it. Copyright protects people, it's not there to be a bitch for you. It protects people's freedom of speech.Quote:
I don't think that the concept of computer data as "property" is entirely defined. A song stored on a computer is just a very very large number in binary. How can someone own the copyright to a number? If I tell someone the number, how am I stealing anything? Copyright law in this country (or maybe this planet) is currently all but insane.
I'm not saying illegal downloads is equivalent of murder. But it's so petty like you said that you should be able to avoid doing it. Even though musicians are rich, so what. Why should that bother you? Just because you hate them being rich doesn't mean you should steal what they have. You'd be pissed too if you were some hot rock band and all of the sudden you find that no one is buying your music and they're just getting free copies of it.Quote:
None of that is a legal justification for p2p sharing of files. But it's something to think about. Musicians and actors still exist and are still filthy stinking rich. I think downloading copyrighted files from the internet is way, way down low on my list of immoral acts.
Downloads should be free...ONLY if the authors of the files allows it. Just because you think it's free doesn't mean it should be. The majority of the people DON'T think downloading illegal files is fine. I don't know where you read that, but you should do a search engine on CNN polls to find out. If someone owned a copyright to Happy Birthday, like you said, then so be it. But music isn't something that you can just think up and people will like it. It takes a lot of energy. And if people are willing to pay, then so be it. If people really believe that everything on the internet should be free, then iTunes wouldn't be so profitable. Honestly, what you said was just ridiculous, I still can't believe I see these words coming from you.Quote:
I'll quote my 10th grade history teacher: "No law has ever survived in this country when a majority of people opposed it". A majority of people think that downloading stuff for free is fine. I rather think it is too. The law should reflect that. One could perhaps view music and other forms of art as belonging to our society, as part of our culture. Imagine if someone owned the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday". Oh, wait. Someone does.
CNN is not unbiased in it's own special way.
I did a report on Napster once. I realize this is a long ways back, but the implications on the wallets of the recording industry weren't as big as you'd think.
Haven't read the whole thread, but has it been mentioned that some people like to sample before purchasing? And you really can't sample some stuff on the radio.
There were these two 10 year olds talking by a church today, one of them was like 'So I downloaded Age of Empires 34 and [some other crappy game] etc etc', so it's such a norm in today's society no one gives a second look anymore.
The things you own, end up owning you.
I don't care about this subject to discuss it further than this post, but you have some good points; I just don't think this subject is NEARLY as simple as you seem to think. I had some courses in college on the ethics of technology, and we're living in a world now that is fundamentally entirely different than anything that ever occurred in the past, when it comes to things like the internet. Like I said, we're trying to figure this out as a society.
[qq]If you hate them so much, don't download their products.[/qq]
I don't, for the most part. I do buy things like software and games, even if I have the ability and the means to download them for free very easily.
[qq]You can say the same thing about a car. A car are just a group of atoms combined together. Atoms are everywhere, so what makes some atoms more special than others? I don't think what you're saying is really right, it's even outrageous.[/qq]
Atoms are physical and can be owned. If I own a rock, you can't duplicate the rock. That's property. If someone ever creates a machine that can take an object and assemble atoms to exactly duplicate that object, we'd be in EXACTLY the same position we're in now.
Information is different than property, and when you treat it like property, things start to become ridiculous. For example, people are copyrighting algorithms. That's like copywriting a mathematical equation. People are copyrighting DNA strands. There are people who say that you can't compile a list of information unless you own that information. Google gets sued for giving a list of web site links. FACTS are being copyrighted.
What is an MP3: property or information? It can be duplicated exactly, like information. An MP3 is a number, plain and simple. But it is also something that's "created", like property. It seems to be both property and information. Very complex issue, not nearly as simple as you're describing it, I think.
0923840912842394127589658097569823746123987463298746328741693827461328974623987461239874624. That number can be encoded as a .wav file and played through a set of speakers. Is it illegal if someone reads this thread and sees my number and writes it down and gives it to a friend?
[qq]It's like me writing FAQs. Yes, it's all just binary on a computer. But if someone made money off my guides, I would be extremely angry. You just don't know how it's like until you're on the other side.[/qq]
I made a whole web site. Everyone has permission to duplicate my site for their own use, or for their own site. I'd feel silly saying "This site is mine, never copy it". Every single time someone loads my site, they're making an exact copy of the whole thing on their hard drives, even to be able to see it.
[qq]Even though musicians are rich, so what. Why should that bother you? Just because you hate them being rich doesn't mean you should steal what they have.[/qq]
Let's draw a distinction between "steal" and "break copyright". I don't steal anything from someone when I download a file. I create an exact copy of a number. An MP3 on my hard drive is created out of nothing as a copy of another MP3. "Stealing" would be if I broke into someone's house and took their CDs.
[qq]Downloads should be free...ONLY if the authors of the files allows it.[/qq]
People can only "allow" something if they have the right to control its use. That right isn't inherent; we grant people the right, through means of the government and the laws to which we all agree.
[qq]But music isn't something that you can just think up and people will like it. It takes a lot of energy. [/qq]
Why does it matter if it takes a lot of energy? People don't have an inherent right to make money from something just because it takes energy. I could spend a year digging a hole in my backyard with a spoon. I don't automatically deserve to be paid for it. "Blargle imphath kerslorg". That's creativity right there. Why do I automatically gain the right to refuse you to the right to EVER say that phrase?
[qq]Without copyright laws, creativity would plummet. You wouldn't have a computer if it wasn't for copyright laws. No one would create anything if they couldn't get some profit from it.[/qq]
This is very wrong. Copyright law is looking to destroy creativity in very nasty ways. Read about the current state of software patent law in the European Union for example, and see how many software creators passionately oppose having ANY kind of software patents. People own the copyright to such things as "hypertext links", "using an online shopping cart", "a plug-in for a web site", etc. Companies use copyright law right now to obliterate other companies, and to make money from things that no human has the right to claim ownership of.
I just don't really care that it's illegal, to be blunt. I download TV episodes and ther is absoloutely no harm in that as they don't show them over here and I wouldn't buy the DVD's anyway. Also, I've already paid my TV subscription which includes other TV shows I download, so I wouldn't be paying any more money to watch them on TV, I'd just have to watch them at a different (and fixed) time, something which I do not wish to do.
As for the big screen stuff. "The movie companies are losing money", some might say. Well, it's either them or me. I could complain "I lose money if I go to the cinema, and I lose money by going on the bus to get there, and I have to watch over 20 minutes of advertising, not to mention the again fixed times, not to mention the time spent standing in the cold waiting for said bus, etc." So it's either them or me. I say "I'll save myself some money."
To be honest, as I'm in debt, I can't really afford to go see these movies anyway, so they aren't losing my money - I never would have spent it in the first place. If it's a movie I REALLY want to see, like LotR or I, Robot, I'd go to the big screen so I can get the full movie effect. But the movie would have to be worth the trip as well as the money.
Mp3's are not facts. They're not information. They're a form of musical expression put in a computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Just because something can be duplicated exactly never entitles anyone to steal. It's not created, it's copied. It's like I write down the number "2", I just copied the number...not created it. The numbers you created can't just simply be read by a person and all of the sudden they recognize that as Michael Jackson's Billie Jean. You're breaking down something very complex into something simple. The most complex of anything can be broken down into something simple. As far as I know, no law prohibits reading these numbers because they would do very little people very little good.Quote:
What is an MP3: property or information? It can be duplicated exactly, like information. An MP3 is a number, plain and simple. But it is also something that's "created", like property. It seems to be both property and information. Very complex issue, not nearly as simple as you're describing it, I think.
0923840912842394127589658097569823746123987463298746328741693827461328974623987461239874624. That number can be encoded as a .wav file and played through a set of speakers. Is it illegal if someone reads this thread and sees my number and writes it down and gives it to a friend?
You missed the point I was making. Anyone can copy the website, but you can't profit off of it. If I made milliions of your website, you'd be pretty angry. I don't care if my guides are being copied, just so long as no one alters it or profits from it.Quote:
I made a whole web site. Everyone has permission to duplicate my site for their own use, or for their own site. I'd feel silly saying "This site is mine, never copy it". Every single time someone loads my site, they're making an exact copy of the whole thing on their hard drives, even to be able to see it.
Actually, you do steal. Some of the files you took were already on a CD that someone had ripped onto their hardrive. What's the difference if you steal a CD full of music files and download files illegally of that CD? There is no difference other than not having that plastic 5" disc. It's like you're defining that illegally downloading is "not stealing", making it seem right. Correct me if I'm wrong about you on that.Quote:
Let's draw a distinction between "steal" and "break copyright". I don't steal anything from someone when I download a file. I create an exact copy of a number. An MP3 on my hard drive is created out of nothing as a copy of another MP3. "Stealing" would be if I broke into someone's house and took their CDs.
The difference is that with something like land use, that's property that people can share. No one necessarily owns land completely, farmers have to apply for that land or contractors. With 1978 international copyright law, you are automatically protected by the law when you create a document or music of distinct originality. Obviously originality is defined differently by people.Quote:
People can only "allow" something if they have the right to control its use. That right isn't inherent; we grant people the right, through means of the government and the laws to which we all agree.
The reason why copyright laws are in place is to prevent people from illegally profiting from it. You can't profit from your phrase. But you can profit from music. I realize that almost anything takes a lot of energy, but no one is going to dig a hole or twiddle their thumbs for eons and say they deserve copyright rights. You don't have the right to refuse me to say that phrase, because it doesn't yield any profit.Quote:
Why does it matter if it takes a lot of energy? People don't have an inherent right to make money from something just because it takes energy. I could spend a year digging a hole in my backyard with a spoon. I don't automatically deserve to be paid for it. "Blargle imphath kerslorg". That's creativity right there. Why do I automatically gain the right to refuse you to the right to EVER say that phrase?
Those are the kind of creators who abuse the international copyright law. That's how lawyers work. They look for loopholes to their advantage. Copyright laws can favor and unfavor anyone depending on how people interpret the laws. But the original creators of the law intended for copyright laws to protect people from illegal profiting.Quote:
This is very wrong. Copyright law is looking to destroy creativity in very nasty ways. Read about the current state of software patent law in the European Union for example, and see how many software creators passionately oppose having ANY kind of software patents. People own the copyright to such things as "hypertext links", "using an online shopping cart", "a plug-in for a web site", etc. Companies use copyright law right now to obliterate other companies, and to make money from things that no human has the right to claim ownership of.
Laws don't care if you already paid for the media and make copies of it. In fact, you're allowed to make copies of it. Infinitely many as far as I know. So if you paid for them, fine. If you didn't, then it's illegal, but what do you care? You're not creating these TV shows anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
That's a bad excuse to steal. You don't have to watch the 20 minutes of movie previews. At least I don't, I buy my ticket just 5 minutes before the actual show time, or 10 minutes after the listed show time. It's fine if you want to save yourself money, just don't "steal" to "save."Quote:
As for the big screen stuff. "The movie companies are losing money", some might say. Well, it's either them or me. I could complain "I lose money if I go to the cinema, and I lose money by going on the bus to get there, and I have to watch over 20 minutes of advertising, not to mention the again fixed times, not to mention the time spent standing in the cold waiting for said bus, etc." So it's either them or me. I say "I'll save myself some money."
Watching pirated material != Stealing. Both are illegal in most countries (all of them for all I know), yes, but they are still different. I wouldn't steal to save, but I would watch pirated material to save.
I completely disagree. Pirated materials are reproductions without authority of the creators. That IS stealing. You're trying to find that exception to a rule, and stealing should never have exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
If BoB was going to steal a movie, he would have to go into a theater and take the projection spool things home with him. And then the theater would be "Hey, where'd our movie go?" If Unne was going to steal music, he'd have go to HMV and put them in his pants, and them HMV people would go "Hey, we ran our of those Nelly CDs, but the computer says we still have one of each left! wtf man"
When you steal something it's not there anymore, you have it and the person you stole from doesn't. But HMV and the movie theater people can still sell BoB's seat and Unne's CDs. etc etc
And if the MPAA are so concerned with the crew on a movie not making as much money because it grossed 87 million instead of 95 million(losing 7 million a picture is still quite a stretch, I'm sure but whatever), they can use thier 'don't pirate' advertising budget and legal budget to pay them.
I haven't seen a convincing argument from either side equating stealing to copyright infringement (other than certain nasty rhetoric, which reduces an entertaining subject for discussion to mere conceptual redefinitions). And since there probably won't be any agreement on common terms, well, have fun trying to be louder than each other.
I've never used BitTorrent, so I can't say I have any personal opinions on this matter.
I used Bittorrent mainly for downloading episodes of Lost, which airs while I'm at school. I don't see anything wrong with that, it's not like it's gonna keep me from buying the DVDs when it comes out.
I used to download movies as well, I mean, it was so easy to do and I never really gave it a second thought. But after actually working on a movie set and working with the people who create these films I felt absolutely ashamed of myself for ever having illegally downloaded movies.
I would feel thoroughly pissed off if I told a friend to go watch a movie I'd worked on, and they go and download it instead. It's such an insult, really.
This is what makes the internet generation so uneasy sometimes. Not one person here has even justified the law. Taking illegal copies is stealing. Just because you can copy a file doesn't entitle anyone to steal it. It's what Miriel said, you have to put yourself in the producers' shoes. If you were a producer, you'd want to maximize as much profit as possible. The more money you have the more likely you are to stay in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
Saying taking files illegally is not stealing is like someone who has the flu but isn't really sick. It's ridiculous. I know some of you don't have a job, either you're too lazy or just can't get one...I don't know. But once you've had a job, you'll realize how valuable money really is. Doesn't matter if you make $1 or $1 million, 90% of all people wants to make as much money as they can. You'll never be satisfied. So for those of you here who say it's your right to "steal", you'd do the same thing as a producer to make as much money as possible. I guarantee it.
That's not what I was debating. It's perfectly fine if you're going to buy the copies legally. You can make as many copies as you want. But I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from. Dr.Unne wouldn't care because he's never worked on a movie set, never once worked with a live band for hours a day, days a week and weeks a year on one album to realize how much effort goes into these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
It doesn't take a genius to realize that working on these projects are hard work, and every line of work makes more or less than others. I hope the gov't continues these actions and puts these people in jail for a good few years. I wouldn't have any sympathy for anyone on these forums who get caught either.
If that's true, stealing is just as acceptable as exploiting anything and everything to get your movie profits up, not talking about shutting down torrent sites, but not paying the crew what they deserve, false advertising, not to mention makingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean
It's like I mentioned earlier...either here, on my webpage, or on my LJ. Just because people exploit others does not warrant you to do the same. Sure, maybe one person might download one movie illegally and do it often. To you that doesn't seem like much. But there's almost always millions of people doing this, and when you add that up, it's sure to hit anyone's wallet hard, no matter how rich they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKaneIf that's true, stealing is just as acceptable as exploiting anything and everything to get your movie profits up, not talking about shutting down torrent sites, but not paying the crew what they deserve, false advertising, not to mention making
You get the false impression that I think producers are the utmost good. No. I don't. Almost everyone in the entertainment business is overpaid IMO, but that doesn't warrant anyone to steal.
When you pay $15 for a DVD, part of the money goes to the producers, part to the retailer, part to the state, and part to the employee. So when you steal, you take a portion of an employee's paycheck. So much for not having a job. With this last paragraph, I dare anyone to truly justify stealing an employee's paycheck, whom, is just like you. They're probably paid $8/hr, but it's still money that comes from these DVDs and such. Your education, assuming you're still in public schools or receiving financial aid for college, is paid for in part by these DVD sales. That's why I defend gov't policy to raid these people who take away so much from employees and gov't.
If it was really that many people downloading movies and music than internet DVD rental sites and iTunes wouldn't be so profitable. Honestly, what you said was just ridiculous, I still can't believe I see these words coming from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean
Okay, if you're going to mock my statements, at least reply to everything I said. Do you even have a job? Do you know how it feels to have a paycheck? It's a wonderful feeling to not leech off your parents to buy what you want. Just because iTunes is popular and so is Netflix, doesn't mean you are entitled to free downloads.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
It's been established that it is not stealing, so you can stop using that word :)
Replying to the rest of your post at your command.
That's total bull, when you buy an entire album from iTunes you're cheating every retail outlet out of a sale to you, when you buy ANYTHING on direct download from the internet you're cheating retailers, wholesalers even manufacturers out of business and money. That's life; those industries need to find a way to adapt. It's not my responsibility to keep people in their jobs if there's a better way to do things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean
Even when I walk to school instead of taking the bus, I'm taking money from the bus company. Should I be forced onto the bus when I can just as easily walk, and get fresh air, while it takes a bit more time to get there? Should I be forced to go out and get a game, CD or movie, when I can download them without leaving my house, while it takes a lot(for movies and games) longer for me to get it?
There's employees at iTunes too you know. How am I cheating them out of money? They're COMPETITORS. If you paid for the download, then fine. But since you don't have a job or money...that doesn't entitle you to steal, yes it is stealing. No one said you should have to take the bus. If you take the bus but not pay the fare, then it's stealing. Sorry Kane, I don't think you debate very well. I much rather disagree with your opinions if they're solid...but it's almost not worth debating. When you get a job and not milk off your parents, you'll see where I'm coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
If any of your favorite gaming companies go out of business, they can have you to blame for it.
It's amazing how spoiled the internet has made people. Imagine if a company made a movie that costs millions, but didn't sell a copy of it because everyone kept downloading it illegally. The producers don't make any money. That's essentially stealing money from them. How would you feel if you were that producer? You'd feel like you were robbed blind before you even began.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
The few well trained employees at iTunes could be doing a lot of different things in the technology-related industry. What else can the thousands of employees of retail stores do if iTunes becomes so successful that no one buys CDs ever, what about all the people who press the CDs and manufacture the cases, since even PC games will be moving onto DVDs eventually, the entire "Compact Disk" industry will be dead, and they won't be turned over to DVD audio places, completely dead. But you know what? That's not going to happen; even if it does it's not the people who download from iTunes' fault. And well, people who have become so accustomed to downloading illegally will switch to iTunes if, and this is a big if, every illegal source is eliminated. So it wouldn't help those poor highschool dropouts any. Artists and music producers make enough money on radio royalties, concerts and merch to cover CD sales. They just need to learn to gauge how well a band is doing by how much their songs are being downloaded illegally, and kick the artists a bit more money to do bigger tours and stuff. As for movies; the MPAA are a bunch of spoiled bitches, the only thing downloading movies hurts is the DVD sales and rentals, if someone had no way to download a movie illegally, they wouldn't go to a theater to watch it, if they weren't going to anyway, they would wait to rent it on DVD. It is down right ignorant to think that ticket sales are impacted in any significant way by illegal downloads. People who enjoy going to theaters to watch movies still do, guys don't take girls on a date in front of their computer screen, and for when a movie does poorly in the boxoffice but makes more money on DVD sales, that's the production companies fault for pulling it out too soon and not waiting for word of mouth to pick up. And video games do a good enough job protecting their product from being pirate able with CD keys and systems not playing DVD-Rs and whatnot so they don't lose out on too much money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean
And straight to DVD movies are always crap anyway. :D
It's easy for you to assume that iTunes employees have other technical abilities. Some of them do, some of them are PR guys designed to answer questions. Not all of them are high tech people. Those who drop out of high school are none of my concern, since it's pretty much their decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
As for downloading movies illegally, of course it hurts the industry. My brother downloaded Spider-Man 2, Day After Tomorrow, and others and NEVER saw any of them in the movies because he has a 50 inch TV to watch them on. Yes, artists do make a heck of a lot of money from tours and radio, but doesn't entitle anyone to ever take music from them without paying for it. It's a cat and mouse game between piraters and the entertainment industry. As soon as one figures out how to protect their products, the other learns how to bypass it...then they learn how to block those bypasses, etc.
If people are so angry about artists and entertainers being overpaid, then just quit buying their products, don't steal from them by downloading illegal copies.
If no one's willing going to go see it in the theater or buy the DVD, it probablly wasn't a very good movie anyway. Whatever.
No matter how much you want it to be, copyright infringement and theft are two different concepts.
It's not that I want it to be, it is stealing. Bring me proof of the copyright law and state where it's not and I'll consider a change of mind. But many of you just treat the internet so differently because of the non-physical nature of it. You can go to GameFAQs, copyright infringement IS stealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doomgaze
I can offer proof if you want, but the technical wordiness of legal issues is often not fit for people not familiar reading legal jargon.
EDIT: Bah, the hell with it. I've offered some links that helps explain what I'm talking about. Although I'm the only one who thinks copyright infringement is stealing, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. So, without further adieu:
http://www.mpaa.org/anti-piracy/
Straight from the MPAA.
"Pirates steal creative works regardless of national origin, and the MPA fights to create a safe environment for both the works of MPA member companies, as well as other audiovisual entertainment."
This statement implies that pirating IS stealing. Thus, in subsequent paragraphs regarding electronic media, the MPAA refers to this as "pirating." You're probably wondering, "well, it's the MPAA...it's their interpretation, not law." It is law, it's part of the US copyright law. Not sure about the international copyright law. Though admittingly, the punishment for copyright infringement is much tougher than "stealing."
Here's another link:
http://piedmont-mutual.com/copyright.htm
It's mainly from a Real Estate company, but they make it very clear what is stealing. Essentially, taking images from someone and using it as your own is stealing.
Before I start, I'd like to point out that I pay for a lot of things just so I can have a legitimate copy. It makes me feel special. But I'll admit, there's other times when I just feel like breaking the law in the said manner...and it happens quite often.
More than 75% of the computer programs I own have been illegally downloaded and/or cracked. I'm a very happy person with all of the nifty programs I have. There's not a drop of guilt in my heart for having downloaded them. The same goes for half of the songs I have on my computer. Half of them are from actual CDs I own while the other half are made up of illegally downloaded .mp3s and legally downloaded live versions of songs that were never released on any CD. Of course, downloading things illegally is probably the most often commited crime, but I do other things of equal calibur.
Whenever I go to the movies, I usually see two or three for the price of one. How? I just walk into the next house over when I'm done watching the previous movie. That's just as wrong as downloading some movies, because I don't really pay to see them. But you know what? I don't care. I get a kick out of it. I'll exploit anything I can and then spit on the law. Go ahead, arrest me if you can.
(This is kind of going off on a tangent, but what about bootlegged DVDs...? People actually pay money for those, even though the money doesn't go to the right place. You can't really say the buyer is commiting any immoral act because they paid.)
I guess it all comes down to a question of integrity, but I know I'm going to continue my habits without thinking twice. If I'm going to live, I'm going to do it for myself. Copyright infringment...it doesn't matter what it really means. *I* know what *I* want, and there's not much of a difference when it comes to others. They also know what they want.
Long live piracy.
The buyer is at fault if they knowingly buy the bootlegs, as well as the seller. But if they don't, the seller is at fault. Because it's far too expensive to prosecute every buyer, the gov't goes after dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seifer
I always said integrity comes down to 2 things:
1) What you do when no one's looking.
2) What you do in the heat of the moment.
Meanwhile, back on the topic of supernova.org going down, the owner of supernova.org attended a radio interview. Conveniently torrented, the file can be found here (well, the torrent file).
Of course, that's all moot up here in Canada, where downloading music is not illegal.Quote:
The stealing debate.
There is a levy on all recordable media that goes to the CPCC (Canadian Private Copying Collective), which pays the money out to the artists. This means that essentially by buying a blank cd you pre-pay for the "right" to copy music for your own use - the Canadian Copyright Board has stated, and it is in the Copyright Act, that it doesn't matter what the source is and whether it must be a legal copy of the work, as long as you are copying it for your own use, it is legal. What's odd, is that if someone copies a cd for you, it is illegal, but if you borrow their cd and copy it yourself, it is not.
Of course, various groups are trying to change that...
(Note that this only applies to music, not movies or books or the like.)
Reasons to move to Canada just keep on increasing.
Here is how the movie industry could solve their problem. Cut how much they spend and thus charge in half! I would go see probably 3 times the movies I currently see in theaters if it was $5. Movies that cost $200 million to make I never see how they could have spent that much money. I don't care if the actor is making $30 million. Give him $10 million and low my ticket prices. I am sure they can get by with out that extra $20 million.
The only thing I really download on Bittorrent is anime that I want. I don't download movies because I can rent them for $2 so thats no biggie. I don't listen to music and most programs you can find some freeware version of it out there or a trial to use.
I think downloading TV shows is fine if they are versions recorded off of TV and not DVD rips. You want that extra high quality then you should go out and pay for it.
I just download anime off of Bit Torrent and I do my damn best to get just the Fansub version of things. If I really want to hear english voices or read really good subtitles with good quality then I will have to pay for that.
I don't like that these torrent sites got shut down because there was plenty of legal stuff on them. ADV did a simlar thing to Boxtorrents. They didn't shut them down but just demanded all the things they have licenses for be taken down. They don't want to destroy the community but rather just protect their investments. ADV has done things right while the music and movie industries don't know what they hell they are doing.
Don't care. People thought shutting down Napster would end illegal file sharing. Quite frankly, I'm not concerned if downloading pirated anything is moralistic. I think stopped caring about morals when I was downloading porn.
Maybe I'm a heathen though. I'm sure the RIAA will have a good laugh at me from heaven when I burn for all of my illegal filesharing...