7 ms·

I was searching for some legitimate software the other day and a link to the pirate bay came up on google. I was shocked. As a producer of software and conten

by fnid2 16y ago

I was searching for some legitimate software the other day and a link to the pirate bay came up on google. I was shocked. As a producer of software and content including movies and pics, I am also shocked that websites like this find so much support from this community. I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. It takes time, energy, passion, dedication, and practice to create something of value. These products are of value if someone is downloading them and filling up hard drives. The people supporting the copyright violations the pirate bay support, don't also support piracy off the coast of Somalia or theft of hard drives to store those songs. The argument is that bits aren't property. But those bits are the mechanism that supports the creators of the content that has improved their lives throughout the years. If you don't believe that -- take all your lines of code, databases and photos and delete them. How much will it cost you to replace them? I know I am in the minority around here, but I am not a supporter of the pirate bay. I acquire the content I consume legally and legitimately and in a manner consistent with how the producers have agreed that content should be consumed. Anything less would violate the golden rule. I don't want people using the software I create without helping me pay the bills.

JeanPierre 16y ago
I think we've all heard the arguments against piracy, and we've all heard the arguments for torrenting over and over. The main reason people download/torrent copyrighted material is because that's the simplest way to get it, and there's literally no risk to get caught. In order to avoid downloading and torrenting, find a simpler way than downloading and torrenting, use a monthly subscription, or a mix of both. This works perfectly fine for World of Warcraft and Spotify, and they've taken people by storm. I dare say Spotify has made music torrenting unneeded and a thing of the past, because it's so great.
- fnid2 16y ago
  I don't think "that's the simplest way to get it" is a valid argument. The simplest way to get flowers is to pick them out of someone's flower bed, but we don't advocate that. For me, it's more philosophical. Consumers need to some self control. We are consuming everything without conscience -- because that's the easiest way. It's easy to eat fish, so the oceans are going to run out. It's easy to consume oil, so the gulf is polluted. It's easy to bit torrent content so people do. But it does cause problems. Some people don't want their content consumed in that way. To respond to some other commenters below, it doesn't matter if studies show only the middle men are hurt, middlemen are important for the distribution of content and much content wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the middlemen -- they need jobs too. As for the argument that "people pay after they download it" -- that's simply not true. I know tons of people who download thousands of movies and redistribute them on limewire and never pay for a single one. If you want to watch a movie and the only way to get it is to use netflix or blockbuster (both middle men) then go there and get it. If you can't get it there or you're too lazy to drive there or you don't subscribe to netflix, then don't watch the movie! Do something productive with your time. Control your desires to consume stuff you haven't supported.
  - joshfinnie 16y ago
    I think people of our technological knowledge get sick and tired of screaming from the rooftops that we will watch streaming tv with commercials or listen to unlimited music for $10 a month and being shot down with a limit of the 5 newest episodes or limitations to spotify. Unfortunately, bit torrent is the easiest way and if I am walking to my mother's and the florist only allows five flowers and I want the whole dozen, the neighbor's flower bed is a nice option.
    - fnid2 16y ago
      If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home. Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway? Are you serious? Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy. The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both. Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this. Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead. It will just take a while longer before we get there. Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there. I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.
- Qz 16y ago
  ...and there's literally no risk to get caught. I know someone who got sued, so I wouldn't say there's no risk.
  - chc 16y ago
    Was this Kazaa-style sharing or Bittorrent sharing? The distinction is important when it comes to risk.
    - Qz 16y ago
      Good point -- it was on that i2hub program that used to be popular in college back in 2004-ish, so not torrents.
    - kaens 16y ago
      Not if the distinction is between "literally no" and "effectively no"
- Tycho 16y ago
  Spotify puzzles me. How can it be sustainable? For my listening purposes, the free version is more than adequate. I don't mind listening to a new album with two or three interruptions for adverts (just turn the volume down), and I don't mind needing to be near a computer to hear the music (I have good comp speakers). I subscribed to the service for a while but didn't renew it because I'm happy with the free service. Post-Spotify, the only reason for me to spend money on the music industry is to 'support' their efforts. Previously I would happily pay for an album if that was the only legal option. And even if you do subscribe - £10 per month? I think anyone who loves music enough to really take advantage of the service could justify spending £40-£100 per month. I don't get it. I'd like to see their revenues. And the opportunity costs. I have three theories 1)They plan to wean the public off any/all illegal filesharing by offering a far superior service for next to nothing. Then, when the public has sufficiently 'de-skilled' from piracy, they will start raising prices without losing customers. 2) They've decided the battle against piracy is futile and they're settling for a tragically reduced ROI over potentially nothing at all. 3) It's a massive blunder.
  - wmf 16y ago
    I read somewhere that Spotify is saving money by paying virtually no royalties.
    - Tycho 16y ago
      I heard a thousand listens is enough to buy the author/artist a cup of tea. Today I discovered another service We7.com, which allegedly offers the same range of music as Spotify but with less adverts and without the need for software client (works through browser). And supposedly pays full royalties AND turns a profit. A fourth theory could be that Apple have been planning such a service for years and labels want to beat them to the punch by backing Spotify et al
  - erikstarck 16y ago
    I've been an early beta tester and became premium member when they launched their mobile version (which you must pay to use). Now whenever I hear someone with the ad supporter version I don't understand how they can stand all the commercials. I think they have about 5% paying customers which is pretty high. Considering they have a few million users it adds up to quite some revenue.
pavs 16y ago
I think the general consensus is that if you find something useful, after pirating it, you will pay for it. Pirating removes the need to buy first to see if you really like it or is it something you really want. I can only speak for myself. I have pirated many softwares and books to see if I find value in it. If I do, I pay for it later. For instance, I recently pirated a book (A Short History of Nearly Everything) and I loved it so much, I bought two copies the same week and gave them out as gifts to people who I am sure never heard of that book or the author and who doesn't like reading books on their computer. I will admit that I pirated "Things" for mac and now that I find myself using it everyday, I paid for a legal key (after using it for few months). Obviously not everyone does it, but this is how I justify my pirating habit (I am not proud of the fact that I do it). I think some people don't like pirate bay because they glorify doing what they do instead of trying to spread the ideology or message of pirating.
- senki 16y ago
  You should download the demo version, go to the library, turn on the radio, etc.
  - aerique 16y ago
    Why, he seems to be a responsible downloader.
crocowhile 16y ago
There's plenty of academic studies now that show that pirating and digital distribution don not hurt economically the developer but only the "middle men". See Boldrin and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" to have some numbers: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-... Free to download here: http://www.micheleboldrin.com/research/aim.html http://www.micheleboldrin.com/research/aim.html It's time we move away from the stereotype "if people download my stuff, I lose money". Greatest majority of those who download would not be your customers.
- rick888 16y ago
  "It's time we move away from the stereotype "if people download my stuff, I lose money". Greatest majority of those who download would not be your customers." It's much more complicated than this.
  - r0s 16y ago
    I would love to see either side of the debate pull this argument away from the hypothetical realm. At least we know fairly objectively claims of economic harm caused by piracy are hyperbolic: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen...
    - rick888 16y ago
      "I would love to see either side of the debate pull this argument away from the hypothetical realm. At least we know fairly objectively claims of economic harm caused by piracy are hyperbolic:" The same could be said about DRM.
      - r0s 16y ago
        I agree, and DRM isn't always a bad thing. The GPL qualifies as rights management in my opinion. As a Steam user I admit that convenience and reduced price can be make the negatives of DRM negligible. This doesn't change the fact that DRM has little effect on piracy.(currently, at least)
hxa7241 16y ago
> Anything less would violate the golden rule. But that doesn't address whether we would all benefit from changing the system. Piracy is good because it prompts industries to develop non-copyright-dependent means of funding production. Non-copyright means are good because the mechanism of copyright is essentially opposed to the benefit the internet offers. If we want an increased flow of information: wider distribution, lowering of cost -- what the internet brings -- we can't have copyright blocking each copy, restricting distribution, and raising costs -- treating information as if it is still tied to physical objects. If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No-one (sensible, in general) would want that, so it follows that no-one can want copyright to remain in anything like its current form.
- fnid2 16y ago
  If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No way! There is still a huge benefit to the internet. There's no plastic to pollute the environment. You don't have to leave home to get the movie. You can stream it from netflix or watch it on Hulu. Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for bandwidth, servers, and all the middlemen who put the pieces together so you can access it that way.
  - hxa7241 16y ago
    > There is still a huge benefit to the internet. ... Well, OK, those are the parts that copyright doesn't interfere with. > Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for ... Yes, indeed, and these are rather different, individually, systematically, commercially, from what the old laws are fitted for. What transactions there are, the sources of money, and where payment is attached, has to shift around. A copy in itself is now practically free for the individual, and that seems near optimal. Companies have to sell services that are a good deal for people -- that they cannot easily get for themselves.
aerique 16y ago
I am a supporter of the Piratebay because the entertainment industry has had far too much control over the way we consume music and movies and I do not want to get back to that. In the meantime we'll inconvenience the artists while we're slowly converging on a better way to pay them. So be it. As a software producer I'm in the same boat.
jk4930 16y ago
Piracy just tells us that there's a market inefficiency. In other words: Movies, music, software, books a.s.o are too expensive for some market actors. The same with black markets and shadow economies. It just means there's something wrong with the current distribution or pricing system. Piracy isn't nice, but that's because markets aren't nice but true: They reflect both sides, the producer and the consumer.
- rsheridan6 16y ago
  Not true. A pirate may well be a someone who would have bought the product retail if piracy wasn't available, but chose to pirate it instead because it's cheaper. Even for those who would not have bought the product retail, but would have bought it at a lower price, that may be a market inefficiency, but it's also unavoidable. It's not currently possible to tell how much each customer would pay for a product and price it accordingly for each of them.
- orblivion 16y ago
  I sortof disagree, or at least look from a slightly different perspective. Stealing is always an option for any good. The only reason it's not efficient is A) people's morality and B) consequences. No matter the price, if the price is high enough and the good desirable enough to overcome B and fear of A, it will happen. So I guess where I differ from you, is that the situation we find ourselves in could have come from media going from being inexpensive to becoming expensive as you suggest, but it also could have come from the increased ease of doing and getting away with piracy, and the general sense of entitlement that people have about it which overcomes the morality hurdle. And if you don't think piracy is stealing, then piracy is just a very efficient action in the information economy, so there's nothing really to call wrong here.
stse 16y ago
If you really want to know peoples motivation for downloading copyrighted material, or wanting copyright reform, there are countless of resources on the Internet and elsewhere. This isn't the '80s. Piracy has been common place for at least a decade now. There just isn't any reason nowadays not to know about piracy, even if you don't support it, other than ignorance.
- fnid2 16y ago
  I know the motivation. They want it and they don't want to pay for it.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  This isn't the '80s... Well, I think piracy was common in the 1980s too. I was given a box full of floppy clones of Atari cartridges when I was in elementary school. Not to mention people swapping mix tapes, making wax records, ...
vegai 16y ago
Capitalism's raison d'etre is to control scarce resources, nothing more. Bytes are hardly scarce. On the other hand, I agree that it's a problem if the creators of those bytes are not compensated well enough. Just a tiny problem: what's 'well enough'?
jellicle 16y ago
> I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. Never before in history has as much "content" been sold to as many people for as much money as today. What exactly is the problem?
bad_user 16y ago
> I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. True, although the "elephant in the room" is that piracy actually drive sales (except in some markets, like computer games, which are thrown-away after you're getting tired, so there's no incentive to purchase it after you've finished it). Movies are best watched in a cinema room, I pay lots of money for that privilege ... but I only go to those movies that deserve my attention, and the music labels should promote real talent instead of superficial trends (teens, boobs, bliz-bliz) that DO NOT attract a sustainable fanbase. I only buy albums and go to the concerts of my favorite bands. Other than that they should fight for my attention (and be grateful for piracy for that matter). >> am also shocked that websites like this find so much support from this community As much as I disprove of piracy, I care more about the rights Internet service providers should have. For me, IMHO, the PirateBay is on the same level as Wikipedia, i.e. a resource I can use to find stuff. They shouldn't be guilty about what their users upload. You want to sue somebody, go after the ones who upload ... if that's not acceptable because those people don't know what copyright is and you'll end-up suing a grandma ... then there's something wrong with your business model.
CamperBob 16y ago
I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. Can't speak for most 'pirates,' but I only engage in piracy when rightsholders refuse to license their content to me on a timely basis and in an unencumbered format. As the success of iTunes has demonstrated, most people will pay reasonable amounts for licensed content as long as rightsholders make it available conveniently.
dchest 16y ago
Here's my legal threat to The Pirate Bay: http://i.imgur.com/0359H.png http://i.imgur.com/0359H.png (Anyway, TPB has nothing to do with the content. They are a search engine)
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Hilarious. Props to you for that one, and for still seeing things in perspective.

by fnid2 16y ago

JeanPierre 16y ago

I think we've all heard the arguments against piracy, and we've all heard the arguments for torrenting over and over. The main reason people download/torrent copyrighted material is because that's the simplest way to get it, and there's literally no risk to get caught. In order to avoid downloading and torrenting, find a simpler way than downloading and torrenting, use a monthly subscription, or a mix of both. This works perfectly fine for World of Warcraft and Spotify, and they've taken people by storm. I dare say Spotify has made music torrenting unneeded and a thing of the past, because it's so great.

fnid2 16y ago
I don't think "that's the simplest way to get it" is a valid argument. The simplest way to get flowers is to pick them out of someone's flower bed, but we don't advocate that. For me, it's more philosophical. Consumers need to some self control. We are consuming everything without conscience -- because that's the easiest way. It's easy to eat fish, so the oceans are going to run out. It's easy to consume oil, so the gulf is polluted. It's easy to bit torrent content so people do. But it does cause problems. Some people don't want their content consumed in that way. To respond to some other commenters below, it doesn't matter if studies show only the middle men are hurt, middlemen are important for the distribution of content and much content wouldn't be known if it wasn't for the middlemen -- they need jobs too. As for the argument that "people pay after they download it" -- that's simply not true. I know tons of people who download thousands of movies and redistribute them on limewire and never pay for a single one. If you want to watch a movie and the only way to get it is to use netflix or blockbuster (both middle men) then go there and get it. If you can't get it there or you're too lazy to drive there or you don't subscribe to netflix, then don't watch the movie! Do something productive with your time. Control your desires to consume stuff you haven't supported.
- joshfinnie 16y ago
  I think people of our technological knowledge get sick and tired of screaming from the rooftops that we will watch streaming tv with commercials or listen to unlimited music for $10 a month and being shot down with a limit of the 5 newest episodes or limitations to spotify. Unfortunately, bit torrent is the easiest way and if I am walking to my mother's and the florist only allows five flowers and I want the whole dozen, the neighbor's flower bed is a nice option.
  - fnid2 16y ago
    If you are of that philosophical mindset, there is no rational argument that will change it. The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. If you think it's acceptable to go into someone's yard and pick the flowers they have spent money on for seeds, time designing the flower bed, water, fertilizer, weeding -- and then robbing them of the opportunity to benefit from the hard work they've put into it by seeing their flowers when they come home. Well... what can I say to someone who thinks that is okay? It's not okay. If someone wants two cars and they can only afford one, is it okay for them to take your car out of your driveway? Are you serious? Extrapolate your philosophy to everyone in the world and tell me if you think it's a good one to live in. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? A world where people can just take whatever they want, simply because they want it? Without working for it? Without paying for it? Because that's the easiest way?
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > The florist may offer only 5 flowers so she can give more to more people and still charge a reasonable rate. Or maybe she only has 5 left. That argument holds true for a literal florist but as an analogy to filesharing it really breaks down pretty quickly, after all the garden would never empty of flowers 'taken' if they were copied. Your argument below that they are not 'free' because they take up server space and electricity and so on are also not valid because the storage, electricity and server space is not exactly provided by the original authors in the case of a pirated copy. The whole piracy thing is a backlash against people that have been stealing from artists and consumers both. Go read Janis Ians writing on this, or Courtney Love, or countless of other artists that have spoken up about this. Times are changing, we'll find a new equilibrium and those that had a free ride for a long time will have to find a different racket at some point. Technically speaking they're already dead. It will just take a while longer before we get there. Artists that make music for the love of their work will continue to do so, and will find a way to make money. Artists that are creations of the media machine will have a problem, but then again, most of them weren't in it for the art to begin with so there is probably not much lost there. I can't even name one band launched in the last 5 years that stood out for me that was not an indie band.
Qz 16y ago
...and there's literally no risk to get caught. I know someone who got sued, so I wouldn't say there's no risk.
- chc 16y ago
  Was this Kazaa-style sharing or Bittorrent sharing? The distinction is important when it comes to risk.
  - Qz 16y ago
    Good point -- it was on that i2hub program that used to be popular in college back in 2004-ish, so not torrents.
  - kaens 16y ago
    Not if the distinction is between "literally no" and "effectively no"
Tycho 16y ago
Spotify puzzles me. How can it be sustainable? For my listening purposes, the free version is more than adequate. I don't mind listening to a new album with two or three interruptions for adverts (just turn the volume down), and I don't mind needing to be near a computer to hear the music (I have good comp speakers). I subscribed to the service for a while but didn't renew it because I'm happy with the free service. Post-Spotify, the only reason for me to spend money on the music industry is to 'support' their efforts. Previously I would happily pay for an album if that was the only legal option. And even if you do subscribe - £10 per month? I think anyone who loves music enough to really take advantage of the service could justify spending £40-£100 per month. I don't get it. I'd like to see their revenues. And the opportunity costs. I have three theories 1)They plan to wean the public off any/all illegal filesharing by offering a far superior service for next to nothing. Then, when the public has sufficiently 'de-skilled' from piracy, they will start raising prices without losing customers. 2) They've decided the battle against piracy is futile and they're settling for a tragically reduced ROI over potentially nothing at all. 3) It's a massive blunder.
- wmf 16y ago
  I read somewhere that Spotify is saving money by paying virtually no royalties.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    I heard a thousand listens is enough to buy the author/artist a cup of tea. Today I discovered another service We7.com, which allegedly offers the same range of music as Spotify but with less adverts and without the need for software client (works through browser). And supposedly pays full royalties AND turns a profit. A fourth theory could be that Apple have been planning such a service for years and labels want to beat them to the punch by backing Spotify et al
- erikstarck 16y ago
  I've been an early beta tester and became premium member when they launched their mobile version (which you must pay to use). Now whenever I hear someone with the ad supporter version I don't understand how they can stand all the commercials. I think they have about 5% paying customers which is pretty high. Considering they have a few million users it adds up to quite some revenue.

pavs 16y ago

I think the general consensus is that if you find something useful, after pirating it, you will pay for it. Pirating removes the need to buy first to see if you really like it or is it something you really want. I can only speak for myself. I have pirated many softwares and books to see if I find value in it. If I do, I pay for it later. For instance, I recently pirated a book (A Short History of Nearly Everything) and I loved it so much, I bought two copies the same week and gave them out as gifts to people who I am sure never heard of that book or the author and who doesn't like reading books on their computer. I will admit that I pirated "Things" for mac and now that I find myself using it everyday, I paid for a legal key (after using it for few months). Obviously not everyone does it, but this is how I justify my pirating habit (I am not proud of the fact that I do it). I think some people don't like pirate bay because they glorify doing what they do instead of trying to spread the ideology or message of pirating.

senki 16y ago
You should download the demo version, go to the library, turn on the radio, etc.
- aerique 16y ago
  Why, he seems to be a responsible downloader.

crocowhile 16y ago

There's plenty of academic studies now that show that pirating and digital distribution don not hurt economically the developer but only the "middle men". See Boldrin and Levine's "Against Intellectual Monopoly" to have some numbers: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-... Free to download here: http://www.micheleboldrin.com/research/aim.html http://www.micheleboldrin.com/research/aim.html It's time we move away from the stereotype "if people download my stuff, I lose money". Greatest majority of those who download would not be your customers.

rick888 16y ago
"It's time we move away from the stereotype "if people download my stuff, I lose money". Greatest majority of those who download would not be your customers." It's much more complicated than this.
- r0s 16y ago
  I would love to see either side of the debate pull this argument away from the hypothetical realm. At least we know fairly objectively claims of economic harm caused by piracy are hyperbolic: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen...
  - rick888 16y ago
    "I would love to see either side of the debate pull this argument away from the hypothetical realm. At least we know fairly objectively claims of economic harm caused by piracy are hyperbolic:" The same could be said about DRM.
    - r0s 16y ago
      I agree, and DRM isn't always a bad thing. The GPL qualifies as rights management in my opinion. As a Steam user I admit that convenience and reduced price can be make the negatives of DRM negligible. This doesn't change the fact that DRM has little effect on piracy.(currently, at least)

hxa7241 16y ago

> Anything less would violate the golden rule. But that doesn't address whether we would all benefit from changing the system. Piracy is good because it prompts industries to develop non-copyright-dependent means of funding production. Non-copyright means are good because the mechanism of copyright is essentially opposed to the benefit the internet offers. If we want an increased flow of information: wider distribution, lowering of cost -- what the internet brings -- we can't have copyright blocking each copy, restricting distribution, and raising costs -- treating information as if it is still tied to physical objects. If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No-one (sensible, in general) would want that, so it follows that no-one can want copyright to remain in anything like its current form.

fnid2 16y ago
If every digital copy is charged the same as the old physical ones, the economic benefit of the internet's innovation is effectively obliterated. No way! There is still a huge benefit to the internet. There's no plastic to pollute the environment. You don't have to leave home to get the movie. You can stream it from netflix or watch it on Hulu. Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for bandwidth, servers, and all the middlemen who put the pieces together so you can access it that way.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > There is still a huge benefit to the internet. ... Well, OK, those are the parts that copyright doesn't interfere with. > Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for ... Yes, indeed, and these are rather different, individually, systematically, commercially, from what the old laws are fitted for. What transactions there are, the sources of money, and where payment is attached, has to shift around. A copy in itself is now practically free for the individual, and that seems near optimal. Companies have to sell services that are a good deal for people -- that they cannot easily get for themselves.

aerique 16y ago

I am a supporter of the Piratebay because the entertainment industry has had far too much control over the way we consume music and movies and I do not want to get back to that. In the meantime we'll inconvenience the artists while we're slowly converging on a better way to pay them. So be it. As a software producer I'm in the same boat.

jk4930 16y ago

Piracy just tells us that there's a market inefficiency. In other words: Movies, music, software, books a.s.o are too expensive for some market actors. The same with black markets and shadow economies. It just means there's something wrong with the current distribution or pricing system. Piracy isn't nice, but that's because markets aren't nice but true: They reflect both sides, the producer and the consumer.

rsheridan6 16y ago
Not true. A pirate may well be a someone who would have bought the product retail if piracy wasn't available, but chose to pirate it instead because it's cheaper. Even for those who would not have bought the product retail, but would have bought it at a lower price, that may be a market inefficiency, but it's also unavoidable. It's not currently possible to tell how much each customer would pay for a product and price it accordingly for each of them.
orblivion 16y ago
I sortof disagree, or at least look from a slightly different perspective. Stealing is always an option for any good. The only reason it's not efficient is A) people's morality and B) consequences. No matter the price, if the price is high enough and the good desirable enough to overcome B and fear of A, it will happen. So I guess where I differ from you, is that the situation we find ourselves in could have come from media going from being inexpensive to becoming expensive as you suggest, but it also could have come from the increased ease of doing and getting away with piracy, and the general sense of entitlement that people have about it which overcomes the morality hurdle. And if you don't think piracy is stealing, then piracy is just a very efficient action in the information economy, so there's nothing really to call wrong here.

stse 16y ago

If you really want to know peoples motivation for downloading copyrighted material, or wanting copyright reform, there are countless of resources on the Internet and elsewhere. This isn't the '80s. Piracy has been common place for at least a decade now. There just isn't any reason nowadays not to know about piracy, even if you don't support it, other than ignorance.

fnid2 16y ago
I know the motivation. They want it and they don't want to pay for it.
nitrogen 16y ago
This isn't the '80s... Well, I think piracy was common in the 1980s too. I was given a box full of floppy clones of Atari cartridges when I was in elementary school. Not to mention people swapping mix tapes, making wax records, ...

vegai 16y ago

Capitalism's raison d'etre is to control scarce resources, nothing more. Bytes are hardly scarce. On the other hand, I agree that it's a problem if the creators of those bytes are not compensated well enough. Just a tiny problem: what's 'well enough'?

jellicle 16y ago

> I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. Never before in history has as much "content" been sold to as many people for as much money as today. What exactly is the problem?

bad_user 16y ago

> I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. True, although the "elephant in the room" is that piracy actually drive sales (except in some markets, like computer games, which are thrown-away after you're getting tired, so there's no incentive to purchase it after you've finished it). Movies are best watched in a cinema room, I pay lots of money for that privilege ... but I only go to those movies that deserve my attention, and the music labels should promote real talent instead of superficial trends (teens, boobs, bliz-bliz) that DO NOT attract a sustainable fanbase. I only buy albums and go to the concerts of my favorite bands. Other than that they should fight for my attention (and be grateful for piracy for that matter). >> am also shocked that websites like this find so much support from this community As much as I disprove of piracy, I care more about the rights Internet service providers should have. For me, IMHO, the PirateBay is on the same level as Wikipedia, i.e. a resource I can use to find stuff. They shouldn't be guilty about what their users upload. You want to sue somebody, go after the ones who upload ... if that's not acceptable because those people don't know what copyright is and you'll end-up suing a grandma ... then there's something wrong with your business model.

CamperBob 16y ago

I believe producers of content should be able to reap rewards for that production. Can't speak for most 'pirates,' but I only engage in piracy when rightsholders refuse to license their content to me on a timely basis and in an unencumbered format. As the success of iTunes has demonstrated, most people will pay reasonable amounts for licensed content as long as rightsholders make it available conveniently.

dchest 16y ago

Here's my legal threat to The Pirate Bay: http://i.imgur.com/0359H.png http://i.imgur.com/0359H.png (Anyway, TPB has nothing to do with the content. They are a search engine)

jacquesm 16y ago
Hilarious. Props to you for that one, and for still seeing things in perspective.