|
Haystack
3 May 2011
|
I do not see a problem with downloading tv programs that have already screened
Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article:
Win this A.C.Ryan Playon!HD mini movie streamer: tell us why or why not Internet piracy is wrong?
It's the Internet issue that won't go away. Now we want you to tell us what you think.
What do you think? Join the discussion. |
|
rubaiyat
3 May 2011
|
You only have to look around you to see that most businesses think that honesty is only for schmucks.
In that environment is it surprising to see everyone else grabbing what they can for themselves? |
|
jaker1993
4 May 2011
|
Internet Piracy is a gray zone when it comes to legal and moral concerns.
Things released overseas, such as tv shows, are shown much earlier normally then when they reach here in Australia. An example, The new Merlin season 3 was released late last year in the UK and US, whilst it's stil to be aired here. when a person from Australia tries to watch a show like Merlin overseas from Australia, we're greeted with a nice message saying that due to being in another country, we're not allowed to watch this show early.
So if by downloading the episode through a provider or streaming it here is counted as piracy, then the only way i see it to be fixed is if the people of Australia can see shows aired overseas at roughly the same time their aired their, not weeks or months behind. |
|
petergaskin
4 May 2011
|
Programming in Australia is determined by rating periods. thus we can not see season 3 of Merlin until it suits Channel 10's attack on the ratings. Then we have to wait for the end of a certain weight loss program to allow Channel 10 to fit Merlin Season 3 in.
It has nothing to do with what the viewer wants. its all about maximising profit thru advertising expenditure.
So we wait and wait and wait.... |
|
rubaiyat
4 May 2011
|
QI did not show up in Australia for 6 years, MasterChef took 7, and Green Wing or Community have not shown up at all.
Let's not get into the out of order broadcasting that leaves us all scratching our heads. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
4 May 2011
|
rubaiyat wrote:...Community have not shown up at all.
I'm sure I've seen that on free-to-air. |
|
farel
5 May 2011
|
Piracy is by definition, in part, a criminal act of theft by interception or intentional misappropriation. There is no possibility of the conduct of free commerce where individuals or companies have materials they have produced 'stolen'. That is, receiving no remuneration for investment, productivity and effort. Piracy is always theft. A user who knowingly downloads pirated material is 'receiving stolen goods'. The injury to them is that their violated conscience is corrupted by the casual nature of the crime. In self-justification they sink their moral character in a swamp of self-contradiction. Just steal their wallet and watch their instinctive response of outrage and personal violation. We can't have an economy if theft is normalised as a private liberty. If there is an exception in one case, there is no logical, rational justification for not extending it ad-infinitum. |
|
photohounds
5 May 2011
|
Farel, I agree with what you say, but delays, out of order screenings cannot be justified in any way.
You are paid for the service you provide in many aspects of life/business.
If you provide poor (or no) service, do you also deserve to be paid?
Also, we realise the cost of making something to sell in Australia vs making it to sell in the US (at least with media) is the same.
Region differnces cannot explain the often huge price disparity.
We all realise that profit is necessary to encourage and conduct enterprise.
So why then the price gouging? This includes some hardware makers.
I watch no serial shows anyway. As it doens't affect me I'm probably almost impartial on the issue.
I buy nearly all my content, I do TRY the occasional sample.
If I like I buy, if not I delete. I think many do that.
The popular media esp Radio/TV flog the same content over and over, content I'm not interested in.
I turn elsewhere - like music magazines but that can become very expensive!
|
|
rubaiyat
5 May 2011
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. wrote:rubaiyat wrote:...Community have not shown up at all.
I'm sure I've seen that on free-to-air.
Must have missed it. Was it after midnight on TVS?
And what about Firefly, come and gone, and never on Australian TV to my knowledge.
Edited by rubaiyat: 5/5/2011 03:40:54 PM |
|
Hanyman
6 May 2011
|
Most people don't realise that taping TV show's on the old VCR or BETA-Cord is illegal too, but everyone used to do it.
Besides, the big overseas networks have already made most of the money from their new programs up to 2 years before we would get to see them. If our limmited local networks are too cheap air them earlier because they think they have a captive audience, that's their problem. They are the ones who miss out on advertising opportunities as we watch shows weve downloaded or rented while MasterChef is on. |
|
desmolej
6 May 2011
|
As Many have commented, Waiting for Shows, Screening of Shows in wrong sequesnces or at odd hours (2am in the morning)or plain never seeing any wanted shows in australia, will cause a lot of people to default to the Bitorrent Bug...
Also most of these shows have screened free to air in other countries, or run at weird times on Cable(which should not have adds if I'm paying for it..dont get me started on that one). Tv shows I percieve should be exempt from being classified as being pirated ( but that is my thought , and true money needs to change hands to allow entertainment to continue.) I draw the line at this point. and say "TV shows Free PLEASE! ", and Movies ( CINEMA etc well Them apples should be paid for.)or at least be able to download movies ( after a few years at a resonable price and format )
Thanks for reading my Rant !!!! :P |
|
girkers
6 May 2011
|
If you look at previous history over the decades changes were made when people who may not have been doing the right thing stood up for what they believe in. Whilst I can't think of a rock hard example now, think about what the people on the Steve Irwin are doing to Japanese Whaling ships. Is it wrong? depends on which side of the fence you sit, is it illegal? in most cases what I read it can be deemed illegal.
It is this same grey area that faces people when it cames to Internet Piracy. Is it wrong? again depends on which side of the fence you site, is it illegal? Yes.
With the legalities of it, it is illegal, there is no question on that fact, however what the media companies fail to relise is that they are there own worst enemies.
The level of piracy is telling these companies that there is a demand for their content however they are not making it accessible. We are now living in a global community, with the Internet being a service that is almost on par, with water, electricity and the telephone in terms of service guarantee.
Look at what happened with DVDs, they were regionalised so that the media companies could stagger the release of the titles for when they were ready. DVD player manufacturers then began making region free players so if you were traveling overseas you could bring home some DVDs from another region or purchase them online.
The world is getting smaller and the media companies have seen that there is a demand, however it is being unmet. They need to look at new models and also the costings. Have a look at the number of people that go to the video store on cheap Tuesday, my local one has $1 movies and it is packed.
People are demonstrating that they are not going to sit by whilst a corporation determines how and when I watch the TV/Movies that I would like to see. Please media companies look at the message that Internet Piracy is telling you, learn from it, meet the need and statisfy the hunger people have for juicy media conent. |
|
Magi
7 May 2011
|
What the media laughably calls "internet piracy" is simply a visible reaction to increasingly ill-fitting and authoritarian laws imposed upon humanity's natural behaviours.
Or more simply: laws that don't closely fit society *will* cause problems and *will* be widely broken. From that perspective, sharing information without pecuniary reward isn't "wrong" any more than homosexuality is "wrong", and prosecuting either is just adding fuel to the fire.
Farel says, "Piracy is always theft." Farel goes on to say, "In self-justification they sink their moral character in a swamp of self-contradiction" and "If there is an exception in one case, there is no logical, rational justification for not extending it ad-infinitum."
Dear Farel, have you met the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and its ilk? You and their authors need to have a long, self-reflective talk about the real meaning of "unconscionable", "quid pro quo" and "social contract". Copyright itself has been stolen and weaponised; it should be no surprise that society reacts accordingly.
Disclaimers: I am not entering the competition. I find clauses 18 and 19 of its Conditions Of Entry to be contradictory. Clause 16 is syntactically incorrect. Clause 21 does not exist. Have a wonderful life (void where prohibited by law). |
|
pacestick1
7 May 2011
|
Its a difficult ballence between the rites of the content authors and the expectation that content should be free and current. In many ways the issue is not going to disappear until the authors find new ways to make a business model from online content. Mobile phone app stores have demonstrated that the public is willing to spend a small amount to purchase content that they percieve as worthwhile. The same business model or an advertising approach could be successful if the major networks used their international partnerships. Ultimately people are fundamentally good (or at least most of us are) and are willing to support content providers so long as it is in a timely and financially appropriate manner. |
|
topolino
7 May 2011
|
I consider "Internet Piracy" as what it actually is, "Virtual Piracy" (Almost, nearly but not quite piracy.)
I found it interesting how the original Napster was crucified, made a sacrificial lamb by the media industry. Yet Apple pirated Napster's idea and hardware infrastructure to create iTunes and with the collaboration of media heavyweights was promoted as the morally virtuous alternative.
I feel that Apple were clever to take advantage of a good idea and the Music industries hatred for Napster at the time but it has now cost them their own manufacturing plants and limited their entire retailer networks. |
|
rubaiyat
8 May 2011
|
Che, Che, Che topolino?
Apple did what and with whom to which?
You're just taking the Mickey out of us, right? |
|
Paul K
8 May 2011
|
I believe that most people accept that taking something without paying for it is wrong. But there is wrong like knocking over an elderly person and taking their money or the wrong everyone does occasionally, which doesn't seem to harm anyone.
I could do things the right way, wait for my show to come onto TV, be sure to be home and watching it at that time (hoping there is nothing else on another channel that I might like to watch. It will take me an hour to watch 42minutes of the TV show (because of ads). If i miss an episode, I can hope that they repeat it sometime in the future, or pay a large amount of money to buy the DVD set, to watch the episode(s) i missed.
Or I could do it the wrong way, I could click one button on a torrent website (or automate the download with rss feeds and no need for even 1 click), and have it appear in my media centre (running media browser) with cast list & a description of the episode. I will be watching it within hours of the US broadcast (and not months behind, if it is ever shown here).
The question of who I hurt is a bit grey. If it was transmitted here, free to air, I could have watched it for free. The feeling is, I wouldn't have paid before, why should I pay now?
I constantly hear reports about the billions of dollars that movie studios are losing to piracy, but they seem to be earning larger profits each year. That’s hard to understand, if they are losing so much money, why are they making more money?
Since method 2 satisfies everything I want, it is easy to find a justification to continue doing exactly what I find easiest. That's human nature.
The solution is somewhere in the middle. I would happily pay all the costs of distribution of the movie (my internet connection) to avoid ads, and up to 50c an episode if it was convenient to use, required no propriety software and I could play it on any PC in the house, my ipad and android phone. If it was a show I enjoyed, I would be willing to pay considerably more to ensure it was not cancelled (like Firefly). While I would not demand that pilots be free, I expect it would be good marketing to do so.
I might even be willing to buy in to a TV show before it was made. I like the concept, I know shows that the director and writers have made before (and love them), and am willing to become an investor for $100 for the 1st season. For that $100 I own the season, and if it does well (demand is high, and it earns well) I get a dividend back.
These days TV must be on demand, it’s what the customer wants. If the studios won’t give us that, people will continue to use alternates. |
|
Slatts
8 May 2011
|
What a load of crap.
If you're downloading pirated gear, you're breaking the law.
If you can live with that, fine.
If it offends you to think of yourself as a thief, don't do it.
It really is that simple.
Just stop kidding yourself about how it's the producers or distributors fault that you're forced to steal it.
You were doing fine without the stuff before someone spent hours/ days/ weeks... whatever to produce and you'll not be more than inconvenienced to continue to live without it.
If you still feel inclined to steal, go ahead. Just stop lying to yourself about what you're doing.
If you don't like the laws, vote for the Greens.
They'd be ones most likely to give you the results you want.
Whether or not I pirate stuff myself is between me, my conscience and any copyright holder I may or may not have ripped off.
But I won't lie to myself about it.
Edited by Slatts: 8/5/2011 10:53:32 PM |
|
rubaiyat
9 May 2011
|
Slatts wrote:If you don't like the laws, vote for the Greens.
Well the mask is off.
Slatts is a Northern Queenslander, or Radish. Redneck on the outside, froth-at-the-mouth white on the inside.
What have those dirty, blood sucking, evil Greens done to you now?
There, there, we'll help you look for your Intellectual Property Rights. Now where do you think you last left them? :-k
Edited by rubaiyat: 9/5/2011 12:07:38 AM |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
9 May 2011
|
What the heck are you on about rubaiyat? |
|
rubaiyat
9 May 2011
|
Slatts. |
|
teza7
9 May 2011
|
Downloading movies, music etc from other people who have posted the files online is not piracy nor is it morally wrong for the following reasons:
1. When one downloads files from a site to personally enjoy, there is no contract which you entered into with the person providing the files and neither have you paid any money to access the file. So no illegal or moral conduct there.
2. Big corporation like Channel 10 etc are the ones to blamed if anyone should be blamed for being impatient and opting to download from a share file site instead. Why should everyone be held to 'ransom' or be at the mercy on a handful of media corporations whose bosses and families have most probably watched the latest season shows anyway?
3. We are fortunate to live in a free and capitalist nation where what we decide to watch or download from the internet is not is not restricted or fire walled (unless it is illegal material e.g. child molestation, inciting terrorism act, racial & violent act etc)
3. If a dear friend lent you a copy of a movie, TV show, music etc instead and you could pass it on to another friend to watch and they passed it on and so on, how would that be different from file sharing. Isn't it just one generous person in cyberspace somewhere 'lending you a copy of their favourite show etc for you also watch and enjoy. It's not like they are selling it to you or are going to sell it on. You would do what you would if it was a physical CD, Blue Ray etc, you would just watch and pass it on or give it back. Same with an electronic copy, you can watch it, delete it afterwards or pass it on for others to enjoy. Nothing illegal about that.
4. Since we have agreed that lending or giving a DVD to a friend to share with others is as generous as sharing an electric form of the the same show on line with strangers, then you would also agree that at the end of the day any person who seriously wants to have a copy of their own for their collection will buy the original. This is what differentiates the good shows, music, movies from the crappy ones as you wouldn't go out and but a copy of a bad show.
5. If Channel 10 etc want to make us wait to watch a show for months, why not watch it now? For once, we are taking the power back from the big corporations.
So, I disagree with Farel who likened downloading to an illegal and immoral act. I think you got the two mixed up with file 'sharing'. There is no interception or intentional misappropriation there but mature people choosing to share files for their own private enjoyment.
Hope that helps clear up this ongoing 'silly' debate.
|
|
rubaiyat
9 May 2011
|
teza7
That is all false thinking.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure that authors of anything, get paid for their work. As it is, most creative people are lucky to escape poverty. Don't judge by the commercially successful few you see in the media. They are only a tiny tip of the iceberg.
The real parallel of what you are describing is if someone makes unlimited photocopies of a book they have borrowed from a library and hands them out to people they don't even know.
I don't know what your job is but just imagine your position if anyone gets to enjoy the benefits of your work but only pays if they feel like it. Effectively you become a beggar.
Creative people are usually driven to do what they do, but ultimately they have to eat and sleep somewhere. The landlord and supermarkets are not so stupid as to run their businesses on a pay-if you-like-it basis. The result is you starve creative output out of existence.
As you believe that it is your right to this 'necessity', good luck in the future to getting any.
Edited by rubaiyat: 9/5/2011 02:09:20 PM |
|
hacker
9 May 2011
|
downloading shows or media does not affect anyone....Companies don't loose that much money yet they fight...How did avatar make so much money if people downloaded it illegally..people do it to get an early look.they will still go to the cinemas because the home system cant match the atmosphere and effects a cinema screen brings....
|
|
Slatts
9 May 2011
|
rubaiyat wrote:Slatts wrote:If you don't like the laws, vote for the Greens.
Well the mask is off. Slatts is a Northern Queenslander, or Radish. Redneck on the outside, froth-at-the-mouth white on the inside. What have those dirty, blood sucking, evil Greens done to you now? There, there, we'll help you look for your Intellectual Property Rights. Now where do you think you last left them? :-k
You might like to reread my post rubaiyat.
Oh, and for what it's worth?
I voted Green.
rubaiyat wrote:teza7
That is all false thinking.
The purpose of copyright is to ensure that authors of anything, get paid for their work. As it is, most creative people are lucky to escape poverty. Don't judge by the commercially successful few you see in the media. They are only a tiny tip of the iceberg.
The real parallel of what you are describing is if someone makes unlimited photocopies of a book they have borrowed from a library and hands them out to people they don't even know.
I don't know what your job is but just imagine your position if anyone gets to enjoy the benefits of your work but only pays if they feel like it. Effectively you become a beggar.
Creative people are usually driven to do what they do, but ultimately they have to eat and sleep somewhere. The landlord and supermarkets are not so stupid as to run their businesses on a pay-if you-like-it basis. The result is you starve creative output out of existence.
As you believe that it is your right to this 'necessity', good luck in the future to getting any.
WTF?
Next you'll be advocating DRM.
|
|
Slatts
9 May 2011
|
hacker wrote:downloading shows or media does not affect anyone....Companies don't loose that much money yet they fight...How did avatar make so much money if people downloaded it illegally..people do it to get an early look.they will still go to the cinemas because the home system cant match the atmosphere and effects a cinema screen brings....
This is what I'm talking about.
Pure sophistry.
hacker wrote:Companies don't loose that much money yet they fight
How much money would you be willing to lose before you started to fight back hacker?
A ballpark figure will do.
Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right or moral.
I don't have a problem with piracy.
My problem is with people salving their consciences by lying to themselves about some fictitious moral high ground.
|
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
9 May 2011
|
I personally don't pirate material out of pure ethics. If I like something, I'll purchase it. However, if the product is too inaccessible to be judged (such as music), I won't feel guilty listening to it on YouTube before I decide on whether I should part with my hard earned cash. Film/TV I have little interest in, so I don't pirate or purchase it. Games I will purchase if I hear from friends that it's good, or if there's a demo I can try. If there's neither, I'll ignore it.
That being said, I'm past being judgemental of people who do pirate material. The reality is, if you're not willing to buy something, then you haven't lost a sale either way. The problem lies with the attitude of the publishers. Content protection pisses off the legit users, it should not exist. Yes, that may sound like a backwards thing to do, but it works. People are not arseholes, they will pay for something if they feel it's worth paying for. DRM technologies are akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Should publishers crack down on pirates? Sure, attack the those profiting from it. Don't target those who are obtaining it for personal use. Instead, consider why people are pirating your content in the first place. Is it,
a) Because they can't afford it?
Perhaps lower the price? Stop considering it a 'loss', when it was never going to be purchased by that individual regardless of ease of access.
b) Because they don't have a legitimate channel to access it?
Region restrictions are a joke in the Internet age. If you want to sell a product, sell it to everyone at once. Don't stretch it out for maximum profit - that's just plain old insulting.
c) Because they want some sort of tangible evidence as to why it's worth purchasing?
New game? Awesome. Where's the demo? Oh, there isn't one? I guess I'll try the full version then...
d) Because the legit users are sick and tired of paying for an inferior product, laced with DRM which refuses to function correctly?
e) Because your entire business model is old and broken?
Perhaps consider free ad supported content? Cheaper products via Internet download, negating the costs of shipping/packaging? Stop aiming for maximum profit, and perhaps consider maximum consumer satisfaction?
Naturally, some will disagree with this, but it's reality. Large companies (many of which have little morals themselves), are trying to force an old business model down people throats, then wonder why people give up and just steal it - it's often more convenient than the bought copy.
If a consumer demands a product, give it to them as conveniently as possible, and then, they'll pay. Notable example, Steam. |
|
rubaiyat
10 May 2011
|
Slatts wrote:rubaiyat wrote:Slatts wrote:If you don't like the laws, vote for the Greens.
Well the mask is off. Slatts is a Northern Queenslander, or Radish. Redneck on the outside, froth-at-the-mouth white on the inside. What have those dirty, blood sucking, evil Greens done to you now? There, there, we'll help you look for your Intellectual Property Rights. Now where do you think you last left them? :-k You might like to reread my post rubaiyat. Oh, and for what it's worth? I voted Green.
I hope you didn't vote for The Greens because their platform is pro-piracy because it isn't. Or anything remotely like it.
The endless demonising of The Greens as either being the cause of all evils, or proposing them in some fashion or other, is yet another facet of our low brow politics, aimed at diverting us from real issues.
Quote: WTF?
Next you'll be advocating DRM.
…or locks on doors. Aussies are such an honest lot it would be insulting to suggest they'd steal something soon as look at it.
Years ago when I was a VAR to print & publishing, I had a totally obscure computer card, useless to everyone, that it had taken me days to get and pick up. I stopped off in North Sydney in the middle of the day to briefly see a client. I was gone 5 minutes and someone had forced the wing glass and nicked it. Totally useless to them and cost me a fortune to replace and fix the damage.
I took that as a sampling of the average Aussie.
How many people had walked past the car, looked in the window and yet one of them said, I'll have that and stole it.
Morals, ethics and reason are fine things. If you happen to have any.
Edited by rubaiyat: 10/5/2011 01:10:04 AM |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
10 May 2011
|
Don't turn this into a political thread lest you want your posts removed.
rubaiyat, do you honestly believe the average aussie is a criminal? Does this mean we should be treating everyone as a felon? Yay DRM? |
|
blockcentre
10 May 2011
|
Cyb3r hit the nail on the head.
Steam is an excellent example of modernising content delivery. There's countless articles of how the PC gaming retail business is collapsing, yet services such as Steam, Impulse and Direct2Drive keep powering forward. An antiquated system hell bent on profiting via traditional methods isn't going to cut it anymore. People will turn elsewhere for their content.
An example is a friend of mine that downloads TV shows/series. He doesn't download movies or music (prefers to watch movies at the cinema and isn't into music) but routinely downloads TV shows via Torrent. His argument is that he's tired of waiting for the TV networks here to catch up, tired of watching commercials, tired of having the scheduled airings chopped and changed at will, and tired of missing out on good shows that aren't aired here.
So he downloads them and watches them when it suits him. As he has Foxtel as well, I asked him if he would be willing to pay a subscription fee to have access to any shows he wanted to download. He said he would in a heart beat as long as they are in HD.
|
|
Zeafer
16 May 2011
|
The biggest single contributor to internet piracy is the legal availability of content - or lack thereof. Some TV stations are making small efforts, such as the Plus7 and FixPlay services, but even these are sketchy and incomplete. Many shows are missing, and popular shows are often many weeks behind international release dates. Many other popular shows are completely unavailable... or only partially available after additional time restrictions.
Australians are being told "FreePlay" is great, and delivers "so much to choose from" - all for free. If I can't see the content for free online, then piracy seems to be the easiest option. Ironically, in our artificially restricted market, piracy is sometimes the ONLY option - or wait until a distributor decides they can make a DVD buck from a series that's never been shown in this country (eg: Chuck). |
|
Zeafer
16 May 2011
|
One thing I forgot to add - As others have stated, people are not criminals by default. On the whole, we are morally good people. Human behaviour shows that we will take the path of least resistance. The simple fact is that in many cases, it is easier for someone to use bittorrent or other file sharing methods to obtain their entertainment.
If a legal service were available, which allowed users to watch what they want, when they want, for a reasonable cost, it would be a massive success. For many people, iTunes is easier than filesharing. The only 2 reasons piracy still exists are:
1. Restrictions on content. Not all publishers are online and much of the content is still restricted by region and/or timing.
2. Pricing. How can a bricks & mortar retailer, with all the extra overheads, still offer a physical product (CD or DVD) cheaper than the online download?!? Bargain bin CDs are $10, or $5, or $1.99 - yet it still costs $15-20+ to download music released 10 years ago from iTunes.
Fair suck of the sauce bottle!
p.s. Sorry for double-posting, I couldn't see a way to edit my previous comment. |
|
rubaiyat
17 May 2011
|
[Duped by this dumb system]
Edited by rubaiyat: 17/5/2011 06:09:39 AM |
|
rubaiyat
17 May 2011
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. wrote:Don't turn this into a political thread lest you want your posts removed.
rubaiyat, do you honestly believe the average aussie is a criminal? Does this mean we should be treating everyone as a felon? Yay DRM?
Do I honestly believe you have locks on your house and car and do not leave valuables lying around?
Because that is your stuff! |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
17 May 2011
|
rubaiyat wrote:
Do I honestly believe you have locks on your house and car and do not leave valuables lying around?
Because that is your stuff!
That's a straw man argument. You said 'I took that as a sampling of the average Aussie' in regard to your property being stolen. You were inferring that the average Australian is a criminal. Locks on doors is a precaution against the odd bad egg, not the local mailman.
Had the average Australian been a criminal, there's still a difference between taking a physical piece of property, and copying a digital one. |
|
rubaiyat
17 May 2011
|
Specious argument. Securing your goods is a precautionary act and not a slight against every single person.
Ideas are intangible. When a copy is as good as a physical object then that is indeed theft, when it renders the actual owner's Intellectual Property either much diminished in worth or totally worthless.
The common believe that misappropriating ideas is not real theft is a classic mental somersault where the offender both asserts that it is not theft because the ideas have no value, but steals them because they do. The hypocrisy is attractive because the thief has nothing to steal, so it is all to his advantage.
Captain Cook had the same problem in Tahiti where the natives, having no metal stole every piece they could, even the nails out of Cook's boats, rapidly rendering them unserviceable.
Dickens implored the Americans to not only pay for his books, which they wouldn't although madly devouring them, but for other authors as well, siting a friend who died an early death in poverty despite his success as an author. The American response, then as now, was to react in anger that anyone dared criticise their behavior.
Edited by rubaiyat: 17/5/2011 03:30:51 PM |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
17 May 2011
|
I think we're arguing different things here. I'm not saying that taking a copy isn't 'theft' (although, one could debate its definition - let's not). My view is that you can't punish everyone to 'secure' your property. I've lost count at how many times I've bought a movie or piece of software, only to have the DRM system fuck me over. Meanwhile, those who steal a copy get a version with the security hassle stripped out.
There's been many times where I've considered pirating content I already own! It's just so much easier. As I said, they're cutting off the nose to spite the face. You can't protect your content unless you're certain it'll only affect the illegitimate users. Otherwise it's just an undesirable PITA.
The music industry has been successful ever since dropping DRM, I don't see why it won't work for other software. People have the wrong mentality that they must maximise profit by making their data difficult to copy. This will never work, you just have to accept that people will find a way around it, so don't piss off the legit users. Unless, of course, you come up with a way which only targets pirates - good luck!
Services like Steam and Guvera have the right idea. Change the business model to the market, and money will flow in. |
|
rubaiyat
18 May 2011
|
I agree with the first 2 points.
The music industry has not 'been successful ever since dropping DRM' what digital sales they have have nearly all been through Apple's iTunes which brought back convenience and accessibility but initially with the DRM insisted on by the music industry.
Apple successfully got people parting with their money because they did it in a way that suits Gen Y. The Y standing for 'Y did my credit card statement blow out so I can't pay it?', and 'Y I didn't know that, how do you know that?'.
After almost a decade of music DLing, people have not got out of the habit, and this has taken a huge bite out of the industry's income. It is just too tempting to DL and forget about ever paying after 'sampling' the wares.
There are lots of other older services like Steam and Guvera that distribute software, I've been using them for years. Many now having to resort to bundling, where a dozen or more software packages are bundled together for a bargain price. Thanks to these I have a huge collection of software purchased for the core useful ones and tag along maybes and nevers. This has driven down the income of programmers to the point where all the programmers I know say don't get into it, there's no money in it.
I do extensive software support for a particular software suite and in the process have almost completed a really down to earth and detailed How-To book on the subject. I am not even going to bother finishing it and going through the mill of trying to publish, because the odds are completely against success and even if I publish, chances are it will be quickly ripped off. The same with creating artwork and templates for sale. Android apps barely last a day or two before being palmed around free.
We live in the age where Kleptocracy, both corporate and individual, rules and it is killing many things. The consequences have not quite come home to roost, but eventually they will. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
18 May 2011
|
Well it's a bit like saying that you should lock up your home, however you can't always get in, meanwhile every criminal has a skeleton key. |
|
blockcentre
18 May 2011
|
rubaiyat wrote:
There are lots of other older services like Steam and Guvera that distribute software, I've been using them for years. Many now having to resort to bundling, where a dozen or more software packages are bundled together for a bargain price. Thanks to these I have a huge collection of software purchased for the core useful ones and tag along maybes and nevers. This has driven down the income of programmers to the point where all the programmers I know say don't get into it, there's no money in it.
The bundle deals are usually a method of value adding to new products. For example when the latest game gets launched, there will probably be a bundle offer which includes previous older versions. For developers this is just gravy as they are attracting revenue for something that can't be purchased in stores any more due to its age.
No money in it you say?
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/02/04/steam_revenue_nearly_hits_1_billion
|
|
rubaiyat
18 May 2011
|
Somebody winning the lottery is proof of how wise it is for everyone to invest in a ticket every week. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
18 May 2011
|
Adjusting your business model to suit modern interests is not a lottery. |
|
petergaskin
19 May 2011
|
Tell that to firms that backed HD rather than bluray technology.
Chasing changes in trends does not guarantee commercial success. you still have to pick the long term winner versus the short term star that promptly blows up in your face.
Nothing will stop piracy on the internet - but that does not make it right!
Its like saying that because drivers ignore the speed limit on a particular road, then the speed limit is wrong!
Try telling that to the judge. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
19 May 2011
|
petergaskin wrote:Tell that to firms that backed HD rather than bluray technology.
Chasing changes in trends does not guarantee commercial success. you still have to pick the long term winner versus the short term star that promptly blows up in your face.
Try telling that to Blockbuster video Re Netflix. The format war has nothing to do with what I was saying. Optical discs are an old distribution method. You don't have to back an optical disc technology if the Internet is your distribution channel.
petergaskin wrote:
Nothing will stop piracy on the internet - but that does not make it right!
Its like saying that because drivers ignore the speed limit on a particular road, then the speed limit is wrong!
Try telling that to the judge.
No one is saying it is right. We're saying the tactics to prevent it are wrong, and target the legitimate users. |
|
dng888
19 May 2011
|
The Internet has allowed all to share things good and bad; legal and illegal. I am a believer of anti-piracy; everybody needs to feed themselves; nothing comes for free. Hence, I pay for games (usually wait until they are discounted); watch movies at the cinemas; and do all the things as legally possible. HOWEVER, on the flip side is that the companies that churn out these products and services should be made affordable and of high quality for all to enjoyable which is not always the case. It is this that I think make people feel it is "right" not to pay for someone's intellectual property. In conclusion, although not all products/services are worth paying for, it is true that piracy over the Internet is no different to taking a car for a test drive and never returning it!! |
|
panto
23 May 2011
|
Well Slatts has certainly taken the black and white approach but in reality everything is shades of grey. So the government sets the hard lines and we are good guys or bad guys depending on which side we fall? It's hardly like that at all. When alcohol was outlawed you'd probably still drink just the same as you do now. What about way back in medieval times when there were laws against witches? The thing is, laws change all the time and it's really a reflection of common sense combined with human expectation. Today, when more and more people expect to be able to receive this kind of content for almost nothing, it doesn't matter what the law is, people will act out of their interest and seek out the lowest cost - whether that be the cost on their wallet or the cost on their conscience. Sooner or later the law will change and the affected industries will have to find other (and there are so many) ways to raise revenue. |
|
photohounds
25 May 2011
|
One Way of looking at piracy:
Remember how some employers do their best to minimise wages at all costs?
Well, that's a discount - It's great if WE get one, not so great if THEY get one :)
People protest loudkly because their jobs have been replaced by machines.
This takes time (unless you close your eyes and don'r see it coming).
Imagine if it was easy for your employer to find a HUMAN to STEAL your job by doing it FREE?
We all have bills to pay and many of us have families to feed/house/educate.
Actors, cameramen, sound guys, set designers, stuntmen, script writers have these needs too too.
If their employer is not paid, much talent could be wasted as creative people would have find SOME OTHER way to keep afloat and we would watch poorer content.
|
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
25 May 2011
|
Yes, but for every machine that replaces a human, there's a team of engineers maintaining it. |
|
rubaiyat
26 May 2011
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. wrote:Yes, but for every machine that replaces a human, there's a team of engineers maintaining it.
And a team of former employees cleaning their toilets and feeding their distended bodies at Macdonalds. |
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:.
26 May 2011
|
rubaiyat wrote:
And a team of former employees cleaning their toilets and feeding their distended bodies at Macdonalds.
Heh, I don't know any engineers who I'd consider overweight. :P |
|
dsagill
3 June 2011
|
I'd happily stay legal and watch shows on the TV if the stations would honour the deal and not treat me with the contempt they treat the viewing public. Continually stopping shows mid season, heavily editing them to get more advert time, moving timeslots and not advertising them, playing series 2 years behind the US so the ending can be destroyed by internet chatter (as per Dexter and putting old and new version episodes on air without making it clear which is which (Top Gear). Why the hell should I sit there and wait for something to appear on TV and NOT download it. Its a 2 way street! |
