6 ms·

> if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn T

by alive2007 11y ago

> if a movie company won't let me pay them to let me watch a movie/TV show via Steam, Netflix, or even from their own site, then I'll just watch it on Popcorn Time and it's their loss. Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You have no carte blanche entitlement to access media or entertainment. If the executives at HBO figure that, financially speaking, it's in their best interest to keep new Game of Thrones episodes accessible to cable customers only, you have the right to not buy it and be frustrated at that and protest it until eventually enough people protest for HBO to budge. What you don't have the right to do is then to circumvent the legal and technological system set up for you to purchase Game of Thrones and access it for free, which, yes, is fucking theft. I can hear the scoffing through TCP/IP. And you're not just harming the company, you're not just harming the already rich suits at HBO. This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons. People figure getting their music for free is a more rational individual choice than paying $16 for a CD. Everyone then makes the decision to get their media for free. Who cares about those stupid record labels, anyways? Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. Thank God it's physically impossible to "pirate" concert tickets. I know we're going on a tangent here, but people often falsely conflate open-source access to information and piracy into this one big, happy revolution against the evil gatekeepers and their evil transactions that involve my money. No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period.

SlimXero 11y ago
>No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. Tell that to the cable companies and radio stations that got their start the same way. Nearly every major media distribution channel in this country at least was founded on piracy. [Source: http://goo.gl/fN62uy http://goo.gl/fN62uy]
- rakoo 11y ago
  That doesn't make it ok.
- SlimXero 11y ago
  Furthermore, let's not say that copying an ebook is the moral equivalent of storming a vessel, murdering and raping everyone onboard, plundering the remains and then sinking the thing into the sea. Let's just agree that those two are separate things.
- SlimXero 11y ago
  ^ I don't subscribe to the idea that it's not ok in the first place.
- alive2007 11y ago
  I'm not saying piracy has had no part in a positive change in society. I know that, without Napster, stuff like iTunes and Spotify couldn't exist. I know that Spotify itself started out with a repository of pirated music. I know that many cable companies and radio stations just started off by illegally rebroadcasting other networks' content. The recurring pattern is that these people committing acts of piracy had a larger goal/conclusion in mind. They often ended up legally servicing and selling media and entertainment on a far larger scale than they ever illegally stole it. These people didn't have the resources and content to go about their business otherwise, and saw fit to commit acts of theft in the short-term to convince people that the core of their structure was worth getting access to content legally. The vast majority of pirates don't have such ambitions. They just want free movies.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Agreed; I'd also dispute that the existence of early pirates gated the creation of other later (legitimate) businesses. The pirates might have shown folks what was possible, a little earlier than would otherwise have happened. But they did not possess any superior imagination or initiative. It would have happened in a different way.
  - npongratz 11y ago
    > The recurring pattern is that these people committing acts of piracy had a larger goal/conclusion in mind. So an action by the likes of a nascent Spotify, cable company, or radio station (or whomever) is OK as long as the long-term ends justify the short-term means? > The vast majority of pirates don't have such ambitions. They just want free movies. How do you know what they want? Can you read each of their minds?
AngrySkillzz 11y ago
It's not theft; it's not even piracy. It's copyright infringement.
- davexunit 11y ago
  Exactly. Let's not conflate sharing (making exact copies) with theft or the real meaning of piracy. It's copyright infringement, and we should be promoting works that fight against the copyright regime using Creative Commons licensing and other such free culture licenses. At at the very least we should reject DRM. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
  - WalterBright 11y ago
    For better or for worse, the 'real' meaning of words is what people intend them to mean when they use them. Piracy currently means copyright infringement. Language is not fixed, the meanings of words shift all the time.
    - gvozd 11y ago
      And the word "piracy" has been applied to unauthorized copying of books since at least 1735. I own an old copy of the London Magazine that contains the usage.
ajuc 11y ago
I hereby declare that reading this comment below that line will be theft. -------------------- If you read this, you are a thief, you just stolen that information from me. Do you agree? Arguing about labels is stupid, but so is misusing a word for financial gain.
- jenscow 11y ago
  Sorry. Here, have your information back: ----------- If you read this, you are a thief, you just stolen that information from me. Do you agree? Arguing about labels is stupid, but so is misusing a word for financial gain.
  - ajuc 11y ago
    I wonder if WB and Sony are OK with piracy as long as I return the "stolen" thing afterwards. But seriously, even if piracy is theft, it's a different kind of theft, so arguing "oiracy is theft, theft is bad, therefore piracy is bad" is still a bad argument. It would be the best, if everybody focused on the actual matter at hand instead of pointless arguments by associacion.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. No, you don't get to redefine a word because you feel like it. "Piracy" is often wrong, but it is not theft (the owner is not deprived of the item).
- baldfat 11y ago
  Piracy is theft, but I suspect that most things downloaded would have never been purchased by the person in the first place. If you take a copy of an item you would have purchased you just took the income.
  - sigsergv 11y ago
    No it's not. Theft is absolutely different type of crime.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Read my reply where I start with > Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Digital goods are fundamentally non-excludable and non-rivalrous (sometimes anti-rivalrous, as with software). Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply. At worst it would be free-riding, which has different implications.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      The idea that theft has to include rivalrous good is a strawman. You are just taking the difference between theft you don't like and pirating and then saying that difference is hugely important.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Hey, it isn't me making straw man arguments. It's the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States Face it, you're a fringe view.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You say they don't. They say they do. The law may agree with you right now, but then there are places where the law still allows for slaves, so I wouldn't put any weight in what the law says. >Piracy is just fucking theft, period. No it isn't. Exclamation mark. ! > .
- bweitzman 11y ago
  That's an insane logical fallacy you have there. I don't agree with the law in other parts of the world, therefor I don't need to respect the law in the part of the world where I live?
  - planfaster 11y ago
    I don't agree with laws - they are nothing but opinions backed by guns - therefore I don't need to respect any law in any part of the world - I need only respect reasoned arguments that I can agree with. Respecting laws is no different from accepting bullying. I respect murder and rape laws not because they are laws but because the arguments against killing win over those for killing, and the arguments against rape win over those for rape. But the arguments against piracy lose to the arguments for piracy.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      This is correct. Laws only have significance in so far as those subjected to them have agreed to a consensus, and if there is sufficient investment in enforcing these laws.
    - andrepd 11y ago
      I'm sure that Jack the ripper thought those murder laws very stupid indeed and that he very much disagreed with the arguments against murdering prostitutes. According to your argument, would it be fine for him to kill, seeing as "laws are nothing but opinions backed by guns"?
      - 11y ago
oskarth 11y ago
If you want to get to the truth of something, you might want to entertain alternative viewpoints. Just because you are emotional about it doesn't make you right. Now you can choose to ignore what's happened in the last few decades and continue on with your stubborn view, but chances are you'll turn out to be wrong. If you want to have a more nuanced view of things, here's some reading for you: http://paulgraham.com/property.html http://paulgraham.com/property.html
- bweitzman 11y ago
  The irony is that we do charge for smells, it's called perfume, and it can be quite expensive
  - Qwertious 11y ago
    Not exactly - after the perfume is sold, the person wearing the perfume gives out the smell for free, and nobody tries to charge people for smelling the worn smell. Obviously the bottle of concentrated smell costs money, though.
    - bweitzman 11y ago
      yes and no. When a person buys perfume, they don't care about the actual chemical makeup of whatever liquid is in the bottle, they care about the scent (and possibly brand associations). I would call that paying for the smell. The smell happens to come with an implied license for distributing it in small quantities in public :)
j42 11y ago
Actually, piracy is the act of forcefully commandeering another's maritime vessel; theft is the legal act of taking & depriving another of property, and I'm really not sure what "fucking" has to do with it at all. Piracy is the correcting hand of the free market, where obtaining things for free is easier and less byzantine than by paid channels. Psychological research has proven time and time again that most people are willing to pay, but unwilling to have their personal rights trampled by draconian licensing and DRM. Luckily your opinions, however misinformed, are irrelevant because anyone who understands this will never give up the fight. We understand how international trade deals and copyright law are being used offensively against the public, and we will not relinquish control over the devices we've rightfully purchased. I'd suggest you get used to it. We're here to stay.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > Piracy is the correcting hand of the free market, where obtaining things for free is easier and less byzantine than by paid channels. Psychological research has proven time and time again that most people are willing to pay, but unwilling to have their personal rights trampled by draconian licensing and DRM. No, the (ethical) correcting hand of the free market is not buying things, not deciding you are entitled to any entertainment content anyone produces. > Luckily your opinions, however misinformed, are irrelevant because anyone who understands this will never give up the fight. We understand how international trade deals and copyright law are being used offensively against the public, and we will not relinquish control over the devices we've rightfully purchased. Yes, if you rightfully purchase something, then I'll agree you have every right to skirt DRM if it is not letting you use what you purchased. But just stealing it outright is exactly how we've ended up with things like TPP and the DMCA, or Hollywood's relatively recent trend of spit-firing bad movies so they'll at least make something in the box office.
  - j42 11y ago
    I'm truly confused by your message, because your latter statement sounds as if you are in agreement? No one (intelligent) is trying to make a moral argument for 'piracy' or media entitlement, but rather saying that there do exist circumstances where the letter of the law deserves to be ignored as it runs contradictory to the spirit. The spirit of copyright law is to ensure rights-holders are fairly compensated, and the unfortunate confluence of many complex factors has precluded this. Rights-holders are understandably scared of technology's ability to level the playing field (by increasing access and decreasing their exclusivity advantage), and thus far most have chosen the historically-impotent strategy of hardline enforcement over adapting services and creating new revenue streams. What bothers me is that they hold the artists out to the public and say "look at this poor starving fella," meanwhile no one has any idea that their new streaming-media licensing agreement entitles artists to ~2-5% of the total earnings generated. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I work in ad-tech. People (myself ironically included) love ad blockers, and I'd argue it's for good reason. Unless the implicit contract between those monetizing and those consuming is respected, everyone loses in the arms race that follows. In our industry it's been adapt-or-die (create products that don't hurt the user's experience), and that's the way it should be. Thankfully nobody is lobbying in congress to stipulate how you may use your eyeballs. Hollywood and Telecom have historically received unprecedented favoritism in this country, and it's possible we're all on the verge of paying the price. It will only continue to encroach upon our individual rights as society becomes increasingly digital. I don't think anyone is entitled to anything for free, but I'm a realist and a pragmatist. I will reverse engineer and circumvent the things people say I can't until the day I die :)
PopeOfNope 11y ago
Right, except you don't have the right to do that. Which means nothing. Whether people have the right to or not, they can do it with absolutely no personal repercussions, so they do. Lecturing and ranting and wishing things were different isn't going to change that.
- alive2007 11y ago
  I know, it just ticks me off when people act like they're on some fucking morally righteous journey of freedom against the evil companies, and not just finding a sleazy way to get free movies like every other broke college kid.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Has it ever occurred you to that the majority of modern Western culture hasn't been grassroots for a very long time, and instead is largely a product manufactured by an industry? Denying people access to it because of constraints like income or geographical proximity is to make them culturally illiterate, and it goes well beyond "free movies".
planfaster 11y ago
> Right, except you don't have the right to do that. That's true, but since when does that matter? The government doesn't have the right to do a bunch of things they do. So what? > Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists [...] Similar and worse things happen when you increase the minimum wage. Why should I stop illegally downloading mp3 files by listening to your side's argument if you side usually will stop listening when I make the same arguments about increasing the minimum wage? That's the beauty of this. By downloading mp3 files I'm actually getting back at everyone that doesn't care to learn economics enough to be against the minimum wage.
andrepd 11y ago
>Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. There is no evidence whatsoever for that end-of-world scenario of yours.
wehadfun 11y ago
In 1999 if you bought a CD and scratched it, your choices were buy another CD at full price or not listen to the music that you "bought the rights for". If we were buying rights the whole time then we should have been able to take scratched CDs to the record store and got a new copy for free or deeply discounted. Record companies/Hollywood didn't start claiming this rights crap until Shawn popularized separating content from physical media. If piracy is "just fucking theft" then every broken CD, tape, ... that record companies refused to replace is theft as well
Ace17 11y ago
> "Piracy is just fucking theft, period." Why are "piracy=theft" people always angry?

SlimXero 11y ago

>No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. Tell that to the cable companies and radio stations that got their start the same way. Nearly every major media distribution channel in this country at least was founded on piracy. [Source: http://goo.gl/fN62uy http://goo.gl/fN62uy]

rakoo 11y ago
That doesn't make it ok.
SlimXero 11y ago
Furthermore, let's not say that copying an ebook is the moral equivalent of storming a vessel, murdering and raping everyone onboard, plundering the remains and then sinking the thing into the sea. Let's just agree that those two are separate things.
SlimXero 11y ago
^ I don't subscribe to the idea that it's not ok in the first place.
alive2007 11y ago
I'm not saying piracy has had no part in a positive change in society. I know that, without Napster, stuff like iTunes and Spotify couldn't exist. I know that Spotify itself started out with a repository of pirated music. I know that many cable companies and radio stations just started off by illegally rebroadcasting other networks' content. The recurring pattern is that these people committing acts of piracy had a larger goal/conclusion in mind. They often ended up legally servicing and selling media and entertainment on a far larger scale than they ever illegally stole it. These people didn't have the resources and content to go about their business otherwise, and saw fit to commit acts of theft in the short-term to convince people that the core of their structure was worth getting access to content legally. The vast majority of pirates don't have such ambitions. They just want free movies.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Agreed; I'd also dispute that the existence of early pirates gated the creation of other later (legitimate) businesses. The pirates might have shown folks what was possible, a little earlier than would otherwise have happened. But they did not possess any superior imagination or initiative. It would have happened in a different way.
- npongratz 11y ago
  > The recurring pattern is that these people committing acts of piracy had a larger goal/conclusion in mind. So an action by the likes of a nascent Spotify, cable company, or radio station (or whomever) is OK as long as the long-term ends justify the short-term means? > The vast majority of pirates don't have such ambitions. They just want free movies. How do you know what they want? Can you read each of their minds?

AngrySkillzz 11y ago

It's not theft; it's not even piracy. It's copyright infringement.

davexunit 11y ago
Exactly. Let's not conflate sharing (making exact copies) with theft or the real meaning of piracy. It's copyright infringement, and we should be promoting works that fight against the copyright regime using Creative Commons licensing and other such free culture licenses. At at the very least we should reject DRM. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
- WalterBright 11y ago
  For better or for worse, the 'real' meaning of words is what people intend them to mean when they use them. Piracy currently means copyright infringement. Language is not fixed, the meanings of words shift all the time.
  - gvozd 11y ago
    And the word "piracy" has been applied to unauthorized copying of books since at least 1735. I own an old copy of the London Magazine that contains the usage.

ajuc 11y ago

I hereby declare that reading this comment below that line will be theft. -------------------- If you read this, you are a thief, you just stolen that information from me. Do you agree? Arguing about labels is stupid, but so is misusing a word for financial gain.

jenscow 11y ago
Sorry. Here, have your information back: ----------- If you read this, you are a thief, you just stolen that information from me. Do you agree? Arguing about labels is stupid, but so is misusing a word for financial gain.
- ajuc 11y ago
  I wonder if WB and Sony are OK with piracy as long as I return the "stolen" thing afterwards. But seriously, even if piracy is theft, it's a different kind of theft, so arguing "oiracy is theft, theft is bad, therefore piracy is bad" is still a bad argument. It would be the best, if everybody focused on the actual matter at hand instead of pointless arguments by associacion.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>No. Piracy is just fucking theft, period. No, you don't get to redefine a word because you feel like it. "Piracy" is often wrong, but it is not theft (the owner is not deprived of the item).

baldfat 11y ago
Piracy is theft, but I suspect that most things downloaded would have never been purchased by the person in the first place. If you take a copy of an item you would have purchased you just took the income.
- sigsergv 11y ago
  No it's not. Theft is absolutely different type of crime.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Read my reply where I start with > Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Digital goods are fundamentally non-excludable and non-rivalrous (sometimes anti-rivalrous, as with software). Thus the semantics of "theft" do not apply. At worst it would be free-riding, which has different implications.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    The idea that theft has to include rivalrous good is a strawman. You are just taking the difference between theft you don't like and pirating and then saying that difference is hugely important.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Hey, it isn't me making straw man arguments. It's the SCOTUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States Face it, you're a fringe view.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>Right, except you don't have the right to do that. You say they don't. They say they do. The law may agree with you right now, but then there are places where the law still allows for slaves, so I wouldn't put any weight in what the law says. >Piracy is just fucking theft, period. No it isn't. Exclamation mark. ! > .

bweitzman 11y ago
That's an insane logical fallacy you have there. I don't agree with the law in other parts of the world, therefor I don't need to respect the law in the part of the world where I live?
- planfaster 11y ago
  I don't agree with laws - they are nothing but opinions backed by guns - therefore I don't need to respect any law in any part of the world - I need only respect reasoned arguments that I can agree with. Respecting laws is no different from accepting bullying. I respect murder and rape laws not because they are laws but because the arguments against killing win over those for killing, and the arguments against rape win over those for rape. But the arguments against piracy lose to the arguments for piracy.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    This is correct. Laws only have significance in so far as those subjected to them have agreed to a consensus, and if there is sufficient investment in enforcing these laws.
  - andrepd 11y ago
    I'm sure that Jack the ripper thought those murder laws very stupid indeed and that he very much disagreed with the arguments against murdering prostitutes. According to your argument, would it be fine for him to kill, seeing as "laws are nothing but opinions backed by guns"?
    - 11y ago

oskarth 11y ago

If you want to get to the truth of something, you might want to entertain alternative viewpoints. Just because you are emotional about it doesn't make you right. Now you can choose to ignore what's happened in the last few decades and continue on with your stubborn view, but chances are you'll turn out to be wrong. If you want to have a more nuanced view of things, here's some reading for you: http://paulgraham.com/property.html http://paulgraham.com/property.html

bweitzman 11y ago
The irony is that we do charge for smells, it's called perfume, and it can be quite expensive
- Qwertious 11y ago
  Not exactly - after the perfume is sold, the person wearing the perfume gives out the smell for free, and nobody tries to charge people for smelling the worn smell. Obviously the bottle of concentrated smell costs money, though.
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    yes and no. When a person buys perfume, they don't care about the actual chemical makeup of whatever liquid is in the bottle, they care about the scent (and possibly brand associations). I would call that paying for the smell. The smell happens to come with an implied license for distributing it in small quantities in public :)

j42 11y ago

Actually, piracy is the act of forcefully commandeering another's maritime vessel; theft is the legal act of taking & depriving another of property, and I'm really not sure what "fucking" has to do with it at all. Piracy is the correcting hand of the free market, where obtaining things for free is easier and less byzantine than by paid channels. Psychological research has proven time and time again that most people are willing to pay, but unwilling to have their personal rights trampled by draconian licensing and DRM. Luckily your opinions, however misinformed, are irrelevant because anyone who understands this will never give up the fight. We understand how international trade deals and copyright law are being used offensively against the public, and we will not relinquish control over the devices we've rightfully purchased. I'd suggest you get used to it. We're here to stay.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> Piracy is the correcting hand of the free market, where obtaining things for free is easier and less byzantine than by paid channels. Psychological research has proven time and time again that most people are willing to pay, but unwilling to have their personal rights trampled by draconian licensing and DRM. No, the (ethical) correcting hand of the free market is not buying things, not deciding you are entitled to any entertainment content anyone produces. > Luckily your opinions, however misinformed, are irrelevant because anyone who understands this will never give up the fight. We understand how international trade deals and copyright law are being used offensively against the public, and we will not relinquish control over the devices we've rightfully purchased. Yes, if you rightfully purchase something, then I'll agree you have every right to skirt DRM if it is not letting you use what you purchased. But just stealing it outright is exactly how we've ended up with things like TPP and the DMCA, or Hollywood's relatively recent trend of spit-firing bad movies so they'll at least make something in the box office.
- j42 11y ago
  I'm truly confused by your message, because your latter statement sounds as if you are in agreement? No one (intelligent) is trying to make a moral argument for 'piracy' or media entitlement, but rather saying that there do exist circumstances where the letter of the law deserves to be ignored as it runs contradictory to the spirit. The spirit of copyright law is to ensure rights-holders are fairly compensated, and the unfortunate confluence of many complex factors has precluded this. Rights-holders are understandably scared of technology's ability to level the playing field (by increasing access and decreasing their exclusivity advantage), and thus far most have chosen the historically-impotent strategy of hardline enforcement over adapting services and creating new revenue streams. What bothers me is that they hold the artists out to the public and say "look at this poor starving fella," meanwhile no one has any idea that their new streaming-media licensing agreement entitles artists to ~2-5% of the total earnings generated. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I work in ad-tech. People (myself ironically included) love ad blockers, and I'd argue it's for good reason. Unless the implicit contract between those monetizing and those consuming is respected, everyone loses in the arms race that follows. In our industry it's been adapt-or-die (create products that don't hurt the user's experience), and that's the way it should be. Thankfully nobody is lobbying in congress to stipulate how you may use your eyeballs. Hollywood and Telecom have historically received unprecedented favoritism in this country, and it's possible we're all on the verge of paying the price. It will only continue to encroach upon our individual rights as society becomes increasingly digital. I don't think anyone is entitled to anything for free, but I'm a realist and a pragmatist. I will reverse engineer and circumvent the things people say I can't until the day I die :)

PopeOfNope 11y ago

Right, except you don't have the right to do that. Which means nothing. Whether people have the right to or not, they can do it with absolutely no personal repercussions, so they do. Lecturing and ranting and wishing things were different isn't going to change that.

alive2007 11y ago
I know, it just ticks me off when people act like they're on some fucking morally righteous journey of freedom against the evil companies, and not just finding a sleazy way to get free movies like every other broke college kid.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Has it ever occurred you to that the majority of modern Western culture hasn't been grassroots for a very long time, and instead is largely a product manufactured by an industry? Denying people access to it because of constraints like income or geographical proximity is to make them culturally illiterate, and it goes well beyond "free movies".

planfaster 11y ago

> Right, except you don't have the right to do that. That's true, but since when does that matter? The government doesn't have the right to do a bunch of things they do. So what? > Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists [...] Similar and worse things happen when you increase the minimum wage. Why should I stop illegally downloading mp3 files by listening to your side's argument if you side usually will stop listening when I make the same arguments about increasing the minimum wage? That's the beauty of this. By downloading mp3 files I'm actually getting back at everyone that doesn't care to learn economics enough to be against the minimum wage.

andrepd 11y ago

>Suddenly, smaller markets around the world have their industry gutted by piracy, smaller labels have to shut down, bigger labels have to fire hundreds of less successful artists that they used to be able to support from the money they made on the more successful artists, the more successful artists have to stop relying on royalties from album sales and have to whore themselves out doing nonstop touring year-round for money. There is no evidence whatsoever for that end-of-world scenario of yours.

wehadfun 11y ago

In 1999 if you bought a CD and scratched it, your choices were buy another CD at full price or not listen to the music that you "bought the rights for". If we were buying rights the whole time then we should have been able to take scratched CDs to the record store and got a new copy for free or deeply discounted. Record companies/Hollywood didn't start claiming this rights crap until Shawn popularized separating content from physical media. If piracy is "just fucking theft" then every broken CD, tape, ... that record companies refused to replace is theft as well

Ace17 11y ago

> "Piracy is just fucking theft, period." Why are "piracy=theft" people always angry?