Copyright Infringement and Theft page 3

79 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

Arguing that piracy is okay as long as you wouldn’t have bought the product is like arguing that drunk driving is okay as long as you don’t hit anything.

Actually I’m not arguing that piracy is okay. I’m arguing that theft and copyright infringement are completely different and also making a distinction between a lost sale and a non lost sale.

So you’re arguing that piracy is wrong, but a wrong that should go unpunished unless you distribute?

Originally posted by Kegfarms:
Originally posted by EPR89:

So…
Is your point copyright infringement should not be punished?

No, but they really should only target uploaders and bootleggers.

 
Flag Post

You guys are bad at debating.
I’m just going to drop in and say that piracy has a positive correlation with entertainment spending. Meaning that people who pirate more also tend to spend more on entertainment. That suggests that piracy essentially “pays for itself”.

It proves one thing for sure: Downloading a song or movie does not cause $150,000 in damages. Piracy doesn’t cost $200,000,000 or 750,000 jobs a year. The RIAA and MPAA are full of shit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

You guys are bad at debating.

Good thing you came along and schooled us all in debating then.

I’m just going to drop in and say that piracy has a positive correlation with entertainment spending. Meaning that people who pirate more also tend to spend more on entertainment. That suggests that piracy essentially “pays for itself”.

No it doesn’t. According to the article the study shows that people who download spend more on entertainment. Is that really surprising? People who are interested in music will be more prone to pirate music. People who are interested in music will also be more prone to purchase music. By logic, this means that people who are more prone to pirate music are also more prone to purchasing it. It does not mean in any way that they wouldn’t buy as much music if piracy was made impossible.

It proves one thing for sure: Downloading a song or movie does not cause $150,000 in damages. Piracy doesn’t cost $200,000,000 or 750,000 jobs a year. The RIAA and MPAA are full of shit.

It does not prove that at all, even though I can agree that saying that each download costs $150,000 is ridiculous.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I love how you called it all bullshit yet you have not given one single example or tried to defend your point.

Oh the irony!
You ask others to provide evidence for their claims when actually you have been the one making the claim here. You need to show that people who pirate wouldn’t have bought the product in the first place.
You also need to show how pirating something you would not have bought, but that you still use after having acquired it illegally it can be lawful.



Originally posted by Kegfarms:
Originally posted by EPR89:

So they want Photoshop. They really want it. They don’t want anything else. But they don’t want to pay for it.
Explain to me how this is not a lost sale.


Easy. Because they wouldn’t have paid for it in the first place it isn’t a lost sale. Say somebody likes an anime but not enough to buy it but they still watch it for free. Is that a lost sale?


There’s a major difference here.
There are many powerful free alternatives to Photoshop that offer many similar features. They could have just gotten one of those legally. But they decided to pirate Photoshop instead. I find it much more logical to assume that they need it for the things they want to use it for. So they would have had to buy it. But they didn’t.
Ergo: a lost sale.

I never once said pirating anything is lawful. There is no difference because Photoshop is the most powerful. People would want the best program and most wouldn’t pay for the Photoshop price so they pirate it. So it is not a lost sale.

Originally posted by softest_voice:

Because your points are all invalid.
What you and your ilk preach is nothing more than semantic games.
You’re full of shit, your “logic” is completely circular, and the entire core of your “movement” boils down to the fact that a bunch of you just don’t want to pay for anything.

Your whole “argument”, that you can’t guarantee pirated software would have been purchased legally if it hasn’t first been stolen, is so goddamned fallacious it’s laughable.

You’re a joke.
Your ideas are a joke.
Your posts are pointless and stupid.

Does that sum it up well enough for you?

Really? I would love to see you even TRY to prove anything I said is bullshit. At least I addressed your arguments and responded to them.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

plus you just…whine. about everything. Every time I see you post, there’s nothing constructive, you’re just bitching about how someone else has maligned you. Gets really old in a hurry.

Still trolling? Keep it up, I guess.

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

Arguing that piracy is okay as long as you wouldn’t have bought the product is like arguing that drunk driving is okay as long as you don’t hit anything.

Actually I’m not arguing that piracy is okay. I’m arguing that theft and copyright infringement are completely different and also making a distinction between a lost sale and a non lost sale.

So you’re arguing that piracy is wrong, but a wrong that should go unpunished unless you distribute?

Originally posted by Kegfarms:
Originally posted by EPR89:

So…
Is your point copyright infringement should not be punished?

No, but they really should only target uploaders and bootleggers.

I’m not arguing that piracy is wrong either. I already told you what I have been arguing. I don’t see what my post you quoted has anything to do with that anyway. It’s true that bootleggers are the biggest problem with uploaders being the 2nd biggest but nowhere near as bad as bootleggers. At least somebody who uploads isn’t making a profit.

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

You guys are bad at debating.

Good thing you came along and schooled us all in debating then.

I’m just going to drop in and say that piracy has a positive correlation with entertainment spending. Meaning that people who pirate more also tend to spend more on entertainment. That suggests that piracy essentially “pays for itself”.

No it doesn’t. According to the article the study shows that people who download spend more on entertainment. Is that really surprising? People who are interested in music will be more prone to pirate music. People who are interested in music will also be more prone to purchase music. By logic, this means that people who are more prone to pirate music are also more prone to purchasing it. It does not mean in any way that they wouldn’t buy as much music if piracy was made impossible.

It proves one thing for sure: Downloading a song or movie does not cause $150,000 in damages. Piracy doesn’t cost $200,000,000 or 750,000 jobs a year. The RIAA and MPAA are full of shit.

It does not prove that at all, even though I can agree that saying that each download costs $150,000 is ridiculous.

I can tell you many people I know have flat out said they wouldn’t buy the products if piracy was made impossible.

 
Flag Post

I never once said pirating anything is lawful. There is no difference because Photoshop is the most powerful. People would want the best program and most wouldn’t pay for the Photoshop price so they pirate it. So it is not a lost sale.

Circular logic is circular.

Really? I would love to see you even TRY to prove anything I said is bullshit. At least I addressed your arguments and responded to them.

Round and round it goes.

Still trolling? Keep it up, I guess.

Says the freegan who’s spouting backwards rationale.

I’m not arguing that piracy is wrong either. I already told you what I have been arguing. I don’t see what my post you quoted has anything to do with that anyway. It’s true that bootleggers are the biggest problem with uploaders being the 2nd biggest but nowhere near as bad as bootleggers. At least somebody who uploads isn’t making a profit.

SOURCE
You should watch this. It pretty much exposes that whole idea of yours as the utter bullshit it is.
Uploaders DO profit from piracy, and they do so on a pretty large scale, due to the ad revenue their sites generate.
But please, tell us again how no one really gets hurt, and it’s not like there’s money to be made.

I can tell you many people I know have flat out said they wouldn’t buy the products if piracy was made impossible.

Anecdotal “evidence” is anecdotal.

 
Flag Post

Good thing you came along and schooled us all in debating then.

I wasn’t trying to. I barely said anything at all. All I did was post what is essentially the only shred of evidence in this entire thread, other than beauval’s links on page one. You guys aren’t debating at all, your just having a pissing contest. I am aware that saying that is only contributing to the problem, but I don’t really care.

By logic, this means that people who are more prone to pirate music are also more prone to purchasing it

Your conclusion has no more evidence supporting it that my own. Both are equally valid based on current data. Suggests was a bad word choice on my part.
I’d like to see something more concrete, such as a comparison of entertainment spending comparing those who believe piracy is morally wrong to those who don’t.

It does not prove that at all

If piracy was incredibly damaging, you would expect to see some sort of negative correlation, which would mean people were pirating instead of purchasing entertainment, compared to pirating to complement purchasing entertainment.


Uploaders DO profit from piracy, and they do so on a pretty large scale, due to the ad revenue their sites generate.

Aside from a few major DRM crackers, individual uploaders don’t run piracy sites, or get a share of the revenue. Amusingly enough, that would suggest that DRM is allowing people to profit off of piracy. If seeding alone was profitable in any way, I would be a much richer man.
Owners of torrent hosting sites like tpb are a bit different.

Anecdotal “evidence” is anecdotal.

Under the right conditions, eliminating DRM can increase sales.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I’m not arguing that piracy is wrong either. I already told you what I have been arguing. I don’t see what my post you quoted has anything to do with that anyway.

If you’re not arguing about right or wrong, then discussing about how or why a company gets hurt or who deserves to be punished is completely unneccesary.

It’s true that bootleggers are the biggest problem with uploaders being the 2nd biggest but nowhere near as bad as bootleggers. At least somebody who uploads isn’t making a profit.

Why are bootleggers worse? Why does it matter if they make a profit? If Jim doesn’t want to buy Photoshop for $500 from Adobe, but buys a bootleg version for $30, then that’s not a lost sale for the company, hence Jim did no harm to them. Bootleggers making money is good for the economy, which means that they enable more products to be bought.

I can tell you many people I know have flat out said they wouldn’t buy the products if piracy was made impossible.

I certainly don’t distrust that, as that backs up the point I just made.

Originally posted by JohnRulz:

I wasn’t trying to. I barely said anything at all. All I did was post what is essentially the only shred of evidence in this entire thread, other than beauval’s links on page one. You guys aren’t debating at all, your just having a pissing contest. I am aware that saying that is only contributing to the problem, but I don’t really care.

Opening with such a line sure does make it sound like you’re trying to.

I can agree that there is a huge lack of supporting evidence in this thread, but on the other hand, unless OP starts by providing evidence for his views, why should people opposing him bother to provide sources for their claims?

Your conclusion has no more evidence supporting it that my own. Both are equally valid based on current data. Suggests was a bad word choice on my part.

Actually, what is supporting my conclusion is a lack of evidence, not a presence of it. I’m saying that you can’t tell based on this report whether or not pirating makes you buy more entertainment or not, because it does not in any way determine how pirating affects how much entertainment you purchase. The only thing we learn is that the two groups “people who pirate entertainment” and “people who purchase entertainment” overlap, which can occur regardless of in which direction pirating entertainment affects your purchasing of the same, if it affects it at all.

I’d like to see something more concrete, such as a comparison of entertainment spending comparing those who believe piracy is morally wrong to those who don’t.

Me too, which was sort of my point.

If piracy was incredibly damaging, you would expect to see some sort of negative correlation, which would mean people were pirating instead of purchasing entertainment, compared to pirating to complement purchasing entertainment.

You would, but the study doesn’t prove that such a negative correlation isn’t present.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

I never once said pirating anything is lawful. There is no difference because Photoshop is the most powerful. People would want the best program and most wouldn’t pay for the Photoshop price so they pirate it. So it is not a lost sale.

Circular logic is circular.

Really? I would love to see you even TRY to prove anything I said is bullshit. At least I addressed your arguments and responded to them.

Round and round it goes.

Still trolling? Keep it up, I guess.

Says the freegan who’s spouting backwards rationale.

I’m not arguing that piracy is wrong either. I already told you what I have been arguing. I don’t see what my post you quoted has anything to do with that anyway. It’s true that bootleggers are the biggest problem with uploaders being the 2nd biggest but nowhere near as bad as bootleggers. At least somebody who uploads isn’t making a profit.

SOURCE
You should watch this. It pretty much exposes that whole idea of yours as the utter bullshit it is.
Uploaders DO profit from piracy, and they do so on a pretty large scale, due to the ad revenue their sites generate.
But please, tell us again how no one really gets hurt, and it’s not like there’s money to be made.

I can tell you many people I know have flat out said they wouldn’t buy the products if piracy was made impossible.

Anecdotal “evidence” is anecdotal.

Heh you’re still doing it? I mean come on, its just plain pathetic. At least attempt to argue the points. The only one you tried to argue about was uploading and that was a much later post in this thread. A person who uploads isn’t making a profit. Only the host of the website that the copyrighted material was uploaded would make a profit. Are you still going to ignore the FACT that copyright infringement and theft are two completely different things? Are you going to attempt to address any of the points that I made in this thread?

Originally posted by NaturalReject

It is absolutely necessary. There are many people who think piracy is worse than it actually is and many people who don’t know the difference between copying and taking something. Your bootlegger analogy is bad. Bootleggers take profit from companies because they still would have bought the product since they went to find it bootlegged. Movies are obviously a better example.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is absolutely necessary. There are many people who think piracy is worse than it actually is and many people who don’t know the difference between copying and taking something.

So you’re arguing about good or bad, but not right or wrong?

Based on your arguments, piracy is way worse than theft actually. If I have a loaf of bread I want to sell, 10 million thiefs can only steal it once, costing me a maximum of 1 sale. If I have a computer program I want to sell, 10 million pirates can cause me 10 million lost sales.

Your bootlegger analogy is bad. Bootleggers take profit from companies because they still would have bought the product since they went to find it bootlegged. Movies are obviously a better example.

No, bootleggers don’t take any more profit from the company than uploaders. Your argument was that if the company doesn’t lose a sale, then it’s not damaging. If Jim won’t buy Avatar from James Cameron for $20, but is willing to buy it from Bootleg Bob for $1, how is that purchase damaging any more than if he would have found it pirated for free and downloaded it? JC gets $0 in both cases. Stopping the bootlegger still gives him $0, just like stopping the uploader also gives him $0.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is absolutely necessary. There are many people who think piracy is worse than it actually is and many people who don’t know the difference between copying and taking something.

So you’re arguing about good or bad, but not right or wrong?

Based on your arguments, piracy is way worse than theft actually. If I have a loaf of bread I want to sell, 10 million thiefs can only steal it once, costing me a maximum of 1 sale. If I have a computer program I want to sell, 10 million pirates can cause me 10 million lost sales.

Your bootlegger analogy is bad. Bootleggers take profit from companies because they still would have bought the product since they went to find it bootlegged. Movies are obviously a better example.

No, bootleggers don’t take any more profit from the company than uploaders. Your argument was that if the company doesn’t lose a sale, then it’s not damaging. If Jim won’t buy Avatar from James Cameron for $20, but is willing to buy it from Bootleg Bob for $1, how is that purchase damaging any more than if he would have found it pirated for free and downloaded it? JC gets $0 in both cases. Stopping the bootlegger still gives him $0, just like stopping the uploader also gives him $0.

You would have to lower that number by a shitload for it to have any basis at all. All 10 million people would not be lost sales. People only buy from bootleggers because they are cheaper. A person who buys bootlegged would most likely buy something from the actual company if the bootlegger is arrested because they still actually bought something. If a person is pirating they most likely wouldn’t have bought the product in the first place unlike the person who bought bootlegged.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

You would have to lower that number by a shitload for it to have any basis at all. All 10 million people would not be lost sales.

I said can, not will. Potentially all 10 million COULD be lost sales, you don’t know that. My point is that thiefs can only steal my loaf once, but downloaders will continue to cause damage to me indefinitely.

People only buy from bootleggers because they are cheaper. A person who buys bootlegged would most likely buy something from the actual company if the bootlegger is arrested because they still actually bought something. If a person is pirating they most likely wouldn’t have bought the product in the first place unlike the person who bought bootlegged.

So you’re trying to tell me that people who buys from bootleggers reason like this:

I want the product, and I’m willing to pay $300 for it, but since the bootlegger is cheaper, I’ll buy it from him, despite the fact that downloading it would be equally illegal but cost me absolutely nothing.

Don’t expect me to believe that any time soon.


On a side note, what the hell is wrong with this forum

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:

On a side note, what the hell is wrong with this forum

In what way, please?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

In what way, please?

When I had written my post I went back to make a small edit, and when I updated it, 90% of the post just vanished.

Edit: I’ve read something about citation marks messing things up, so I left them out the second time. Seems weird it worked before the edit though.

 
Flag Post

The forum software’s old. It has a LOT of bugs. The codebase it is derived from is no-longer made, and the company has gone out of business, so its held together with duct-tape and praying. Works fine for short posts though, which outside of SD is what 99% of posts are, so its easy to see why they keep it.

The same advice we give everyone (we being longtime SD users), applies here though. Backup your posts before posting. If anything goes wrong, you still have the post and can resubmit it. This is especially true of long posts, as the inbuilt formatting breaks very easily on the wrong character string. Too much or too little html coding can set it off, as can too many links.

If it does break, then you have to format your post like you would for a html webpage in order to get it to display properly. When editing, if there’s something in your post the forum cannot really handle, it won’t send the full post to the edit box, and will cut it off prematurely. If this happens, just cancel the edit and the original post will be preserved. Keep trying to edit it until the full post is displayed in the edit box. This may take a few tries – or just paste the full post in from where you saved it.

The forum is cantankerous, but its no worse than its older users. A little patience and foresight, and you will be fine.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Works fine for short posts though,

I really thought my post wasn’t that long.

Thanks for the explanation, I’ll try to keep that in mind and not whine about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

You would have to lower that number by a shitload for it to have any basis at all. All 10 million people would not be lost sales.

I said can, not will. Potentially all 10 million COULD be lost sales, you don’t know that. My point is that thiefs can only steal my loaf once, but downloaders will continue to cause damage to me indefinitely.

People only buy from bootleggers because they are cheaper. A person who buys bootlegged would most likely buy something from the actual company if the bootlegger is arrested because they still actually bought something. If a person is pirating they most likely wouldn’t have bought the product in the first place unlike the person who bought bootlegged.

So you’re trying to tell me that people who buys from bootleggers reason like this:

I want the product, and I’m willing to pay $300 for it, but since the bootlegger is cheaper, I’ll buy it from him, despite the fact that downloading it would be equally illegal but cost me absolutely nothing.

Don’t expect me to believe that any time soon.


On a side note, what the hell is wrong with this forum

I actually do know that because there is no way that if you picked 10 million people that they would have actually bought the product. If a person who is willing to bootleg a product instead of just pirate it or get an actual good version then they would be pretty stupid. A person who bootlegs would most likely have wanted to buy the original. I see no evidence that a person who buys from a bootlegger wouldn’t have wanted the real version.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I actually do know that because there is no way that if you picked 10 million people that they would have actually bought the product.

You’re still missing his point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I actually do know that because there is no way that if you picked 10 million people that they would have actually bought the product.

No, you don’t know that. You’re just estimating.

If a person who is willing to bootleg a product instead of just pirate it or get an actual good version then they would be pretty stupid.

But that’s exactly what happens in every single case of a bootlegged copy being bought according to you.

A person who bootlegs would most likely have wanted to buy the original.

Every person who pirates something would have bought it if piracy didn’t exist.

See how me saying something doesn’t make it true automatically? It works the same way when you say things.

I see no evidence that a person who buys from a bootlegger wouldn’t have wanted the real version.

Just like there is no evidence that a person who pirates a product wouldn’t have wanted the real version.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I actually do know that because there is no way that if you picked 10 million people that they would have actually bought the product.


This is embarrassing.

You make the claim, so it’s your job to present evidence.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I actually do know that because there is no way that if you picked 10 million people that they would have actually bought the product.

No, you don’t know that. You’re just estimating.

If a person who is willing to bootleg a product instead of just pirate it or get an actual good version then they would be pretty stupid.

But that’s exactly what happens in every single case of a bootlegged copy being bought according to you.

A person who bootlegs would most likely have wanted to buy the original.

Every person who pirates something would have bought it if piracy didn’t exist.

See how me saying something doesn’t make it true automatically? It works the same way when you say things.

I see no evidence that a person who buys from a bootlegger wouldn’t have wanted the real version.

Just like there is no evidence that a person who pirates a product wouldn’t have wanted the real version.

I’m not estimating at all. ALL 10 million people picked randomly throughout the world would not be lost sales.

 
Flag Post

Oh! So your point was that the counter argument can only be considered valid when ALL of the 10 million would have bought it. Cool. I mean, it’s not what you said originally, but at least now we know. there’s also no one here who actually argued that out of 10 million people who pirate material all of them would have bought it. The point was that enough might have bought it to consider piracy a loss of potential income for the creator.

Where is the link to the study, btw? Because it really sounds as if you are still estimating.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I’m not estimating at all. ALL 10 million people picked randomly throughout the world would not be lost sales.

In a real world application, yes, it’s unlikely that you’re going to get only one answer from everyone you pick, but there is the potential that you could, which is his point.

EDIT: Also, from the way you’re wording your claims, you are saying that everyone you pick wouldn’t have bought the product legally.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I’m not estimating at all. ALL 10 million people picked randomly throughout the world would not be lost sales.

And you know that…how?

Should I take that you ignore the rest of my post as that you agree that your statements about bootlegging were completely unjustified?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Oh! So your point was that the counter argument can only be considered valid when ALL of the 10 million would have bought it. Cool. I mean, it’s not what you said originally, but at least now we know. there’s also no one here who actually argued that out of 10 million people who pirate material all of them would have bought it. The point was that enough might have bought it to consider piracy a loss of potential income for the creator.

Where is the link to the study, btw? Because it really sounds as if you are still estimating.

That’s how the RIAA thinks. Better to assume everything is a loss sale I guess just to make themselves look like they are actually getting hurt.

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I’m not estimating at all. ALL 10 million people picked randomly throughout the world would not be lost sales.

In a real world application, yes, it’s unlikely that you’re going to get only one answer from everyone you pick, but there is the potential that you could, which is his point.

EDIT: Also, from the way you’re wording your claims, you are saying that everyone you pick wouldn’t have bought the product legally.

I never said they would have bought the product either. It would be impossible to tell. I doubt it would even be even.

Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

I’m not estimating at all. ALL 10 million people picked randomly throughout the world would not be lost sales.

And you know that…how?

Should I take that you ignore the rest of my post as that you agree that your statements about bootlegging were completely unjustified?

My statements are completely justified about bootlegging.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

My statements are completely justified about bootlegging.

Then I’m completely justified saying that every person who downloads something would have bought the product. So if there are 10 million downloads, that’s 10 million lost sales.