Who here acctually buys movies, music tv shows, e.t.c.

Pages: 123456... 8
Mats wrote:
Fair exchange is not a good answer. It turns crime into a fair gambling game! The penalty should, in almost all cases, be at least a little worse than fair.


I think that the cost of the bureaucratic workers' wages handling the conviction added onto the cost of the property stolen / damaged should be enough.

Then, you have fair exchange to the owner of the property, as well as fair exchange with the government workers' time spent.
Last edited on
The triviality of a crime is subjective to who is on the short end of the stick. (Think about your brother and his career, especially if he didn't have anyone to help support him if everyone simply steals his work and leaves him with nothing.)


My brother pirates music more than I do... and the way he describes his career is along the lines of...

"Careers are where you make money by providing a good of service. It just so happens, that in my career, the good I'm providing is free."

He currently does not make money on his music, but he still treats it as though it's his job -- because to him, it is. I try to support him whenever I can, partly because he's my brother, and partly because I love his music.

Whether it's an apple on a market stall or a piece of art on the internet, stealing is stealing


I can't say I agree with that second part. To me, there's a very clear difference between digital piracy and physical theft. I don't think I'm in the minority on that, either.

I pirate without a thought. My conscious is completely clear. But I would never so much as consider swiping a pack of gum from a store.

It's the job of the government to see to it things are set right. Note - this is not a $10,000 fine for stealing a $5 t-shirt, but rather, possibly...$5 plus the cost of the wages of those involved in resolving the crime.


I guess this is where my philosophy is rooted.

I don't agree that there's anything to set right here... because I really don't think digital piracy is wrong.

I think monetizing art is wrong. Art should be available to anyone and everyone. Not just those who can afford it.
Disch wrote:
I think monetizing art is wrong. Art should be available to anyone and everyone. Not just those who can afford it.


That's something that I just can't grasp. My way of thinking is just incompatible, I suppose.
It sure would be nice to have the economy of Star Trek.
It sure would be nice to have the economy of Star Trek.


As soon as someone disproves the laws of thermodynamics, we'll be there.

Computer! A cup of earl grey with some cookies.

Damn...now I'm going to have to back out of this topic and find some reruns on Netflix.


* This meme always cracks me up...

http://www.colinfbarnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/star-trek-captains-log.jpg
Last edited on
It sure would be nice to have the economy of Star Trek.


The thing with art is that it's art. Good artists don't make art because it's profitable, they make it because it's their passion. (Not to say they won't seek a profit with it.. but it's not their driving force... they'd continue to make art even if it's not profitable)

Ultimately, art got twisted into an industry, and instead of art being created, it got manufactured.

Art and business simply don't mix. One is fueled by passion, the other is fueled by profit. Including art as part of the private economy is folly, IMO.

That's something that I just can't grasp. My way of thinking is just incompatible, I suppose.


It's widely understood that exposure to art (especially at an early age) increases creativity and general intellect. Children with more exposure to art growing up tend to do better in school and move on to more successful careers.

So in a sense, the "only those with money can have it" mentality contributes to class division.


But never mind that. Consider the human/moral aspect of it. Depriving someone of art is cruel. Can you imagine if you had to go through life without hearing music simply because you were poor? How miserable would that be.
Last edited on
It sure would be nice to have the economy of Star Trek.


Shame we more closely resemble the Borg than Starfleet...

Getting back on topic:

I agree that it would be great if art was freely available to everyone. The problem is, how on Earth do you expect artists to survive if their full time job of doing art earns them no money? It would take a complete redesign of the economy from the ground upwards and that's not coming any time soon. Imagine making music that loads of people listen to and struggling to live.

Wait what Luc? Star Trek is on Netflix? *leaves thread*
I agree that it would be great if art was freely available to everyone. The problem is, how on Earth do you expect artists to survive if their full time job of doing art earns them no money?


The same way most of them do now. Most artists do not make money off their art.

It would take a complete redesign of the economy from the ground upwards and that's not coming any time soon.


Maybe internet piracy is the first step towards such a change? It's not really as drastic as it seems.

Imagine making music that loads of people listen to and struggling to live.


If you become that popular, I'm sure there will be ways to sustain yourself from your art. Remember, I never said artists shouldn't be paid... I said artists don't create art with payment as their primary goal.
Last edited on
@Disch
Yes it would be hard to pirate a PS3/Xbox/etc game, but not impossible. During the 90s they had a Playstation Underground that had a 2 disc set that came with the PSX and on the first disc was this anti-piracy (3 minute) long video (surprised I could even find it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9NXgndqzGE

I think it explains my argument better than I did earlier about how piracy hurts game devs and future games.

izrex wrote:
Being illegal or not doesn't coincide with it being right or wrong morally. It's illegal for gay marriage (for the most part in the US), does that mean you believe homosexuals should feel guilty for going to another country, getting married, then coming back ? I don't.


That is opening a whole different debate. Piracy will always be a form of theft and theft will always be illegal and morally wrong. Same-sex marriages will only be illegal for a few more years before they are legal and it is morally wrong in the eyes of a lot of people (mainly the ones that are trying to keep it illegal by law). Don't forget, interracial marriages used to be illegal by law. Also, they probably do feel guilty because most still keep it secret after doing it for whatever reason. Honestly, I'm for same sex marriage. I've heard it said that it is a sin against God, but I'm Christian and all I have to say is, who cares it is their sin that they must live with and them getting married isn't going to upset anything major. Which this also opens another debate, you can't have the pledge of allegiance removed from schools because it has 'God' in it and then use God as a reason people of the same sex can't be married.

Note this is all just my personal opinion. It's not like I'm secretly a Congressman running a secret agenda or something.
Last edited on
@BHX Specter

Sony nailed the piracy issue with the PS3. The cost / time involved in cracking the PS3 vastly outweighed the benefits of doing so. I'm very impressed by Sony.

Tip: Don't run for congress. The honest candidates usually end up at the bottom of the Atlantic before they even get close. </conspiracy>
I think that the cost of the bureaucratic workers' wages handling the conviction added onto the cost of the property stolen / damaged should be enough.

Then, you have fair exchange to the owner of the property, as well as fair exchange with the government workers' time spent.


So if some rich guy steals something expensive, they can basically commit crimes all day and not really suffer for it?
Luc Lieber wrote:
Sony nailed the piracy issue with the PS3. The cost / time involved in cracking the PS3 vastly outweighed the benefits of doing so. I'm very impressed by Sony.

I wonder if they did that for the PS4. I can't get over how Sony and the PS4 is going to embrace the indie community (those with money) and Microsoft and the Xbox One isn't doing it like the 360 did.

Luc Lieber wrote:
Tip: Don't run for congress. The honest candidates usually end up at the bottom of the Atlantic before they even get close. </conspiracy>

I never would. Pay may be great, but my life and my wife's and son's lives would be under the microscope of the media. I couldn't do that to them.
BHX Specter wrote:
Piracy will always be a form of theft and theft will always be illegal and morally wrong


You say that like morals aren't subjective. trollface.jpg
closed account (oGbjE3v7)
BHX wrote:
theft will always be illegal and morally wrong.

So as a christian you believe it's morally right to deny a starving person that's begging you to give them food ? You think it's morally wrong for a starving person to steal food even as others watch them starve to death and do nothing about it ? You clearly see this world as black and white with no gray.
Last edited on
A better question might be who actually watches the shit they put on TV and films these days.

It's not even worth stealing.
A better question might be who actually watches the shit they put on TV and films these days.


As with everything... there's good and bad.

Modern television is both better than its ever been, and worse than it's ever been. I stand by the claim that Breaking Bad is one of the best (if not the very best) television show of all time.

On the other hand, you've got Duck Dynasty, which is the 100th clone of those lame reality show/pseudo documentaries. And <insert sitcom here>, which are all formulaic, predictable, and poorly written.



Though I agree for the most part. I don't understand why anyone would pay $60 a month for cable/satellite television to watch with commercials, when you can pay a fraction of that for Netflix to watch it on demand commercial free (or... you know... pirate it).

I don't even own a TV anymore.
Dr. Who has been pretty good too, since the revival.
A show where the main character gets recycled every couple seasons, no thanks.
What's the problem with that?
Yeah I've been really into Dr. Who as well. Though I think it peaked with the David Tennant era... I liked Matt Smith, but they just weren't as good.

ResidentBiscuit wrote:
A show where the main character gets recycled every couple seasons, no thanks.


Sounds like a complaint from someone who's never seen the show.

The Season 2 Finale of the new Who was amazing. It had be literally crying out of pure emotion (not many shows can do that to me anymore), then busting out in laughter 10 seconds later.

Just stellar writing and acting. It somehow is serious... but without taking itself too seriously. Like it is intentionally cheesy. It's really weird. But it really is one of the best shows out there.



EDIT:

I mean... "Blink"? Come on.

And "Midnight"? I challenge anyone to watch that episode and not cringe from the tension and fear... and in that ep they do it all with dialogue and acting... there's like no special effects.
Last edited on
Pages: 123456... 8