Support NeoGAF

[WickedAngel]

Well there can be no valid argument against this. Anyone arguing for torrenting/distributing copyrighted material is making a dumb argument.

I work in broadcast so I may be biased. However, it is, indeed, stealing.

Well there's a shocker; a person who admittedly works in broadcast proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement?!

Have you ever taken a moment and thought about how fucking absurd your business model is? Seriously, have you thought about it at all?

Why should consumers have to pay $70-100 for a 200 channel package (Which possesses a whopping 5-10 channels they actually want to watch) only to sit through an endless string of 5-minute blocks of content intertwined with 3-minute blocks of advertisements? Why should they pay that money for programming that is permanently emblazoned with the network brand? Why should they pay that money for programming in which those 5-minute blocks of content are themselves interrupted intermittently with float-over motion ads that take up 25% of the screen?

DVDs and games have an entirely different set of questions that need be answered. Why should consumers pay for DVDs that nag them about the evils of copyright infringement? They've already purchased the damned movie. Why shouldn't I be allowed to back up the content that I've purchased? Why should I have to go through increasingly unreliable measures to prove that I purchased the game, spanning from limited-use serial keys to requirements of always-active internet connections for constant calls to a home server?

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

 

[Zaptruder]

I am not going to go that far, but OBama campaigned on "Change" and I have seen nothing but "Status Quo". Obama has for the most part continued the exact trajectory that Bush was going in. Still in Iraq, even deeper in Afganistan, siding with big business at every chance, slow to react to disasters but quick to go make a fund raising speech! He is your typical politician, say what you must to get elected and then do wtf you please when you get there. But I do think it may be a symptom of a simple fact, it doesn't really matter who is president. Big business runs this country, period.

Spending a bunch of money to go after a college kid who is downloading the Eminem album illegaly is going to help this country? Look, I am all for going after people who have a closet full of pirated DVDs and CDs to sell at the flea market. I am all for going after sites where you can view pirated movies for free. But going after the individual doesn't work. Just like busting a dude with 5 joints doesn't stop the drug problem, going after a dude with 2,000 downloaded songs isn't going to stop the piracy problem.

But this kind of shit gets more money in campaign funds from big business.

But the many many individuals in this situation are also the distributors.

It's not a tenable situation for anyone but the pirates... You can get all pissy about it, or you can be smart and respond to the changing landscape of technology.

The money spent by RIAA and the MPAA on prosecution on lawyers has in no way been recouped, no has it really put a dent in piracy.

Getting a hard on and saying stuff like, we're going to track IPs and sniff packets will just mean a more convoluted internet for all... and even then people aren't going to stop. Individuals might, but the cloak of percieved anonymity through the sheer mass of numbers is simply too great to cause this endeavour to be anything but an effort in futility.

Sites like Hulu (or at least Hulu in its finer moments) are one of the better responses, but it needs to go further... and hollywood companies simply need to get used to ceding more control to their consumers. Like it or not, they're not just battling piracy, but the ever broadening array of entertainment, lifestyle and time wasting options.

 

[LM4sure]

Not everything is stealing though.. watching newest episodes of a tv show that is only broadcasted there is not piracy is it?

Yeah, that is stealing. The producers don't want you doing that. Then you won't buy the dvd! You're about to feel the wrath of Obama!

 

[arstal]

Well there's a shocker; a person who admittedly works in broadcast proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement?!

Have you ever taken a moment and thought about how fucking absurd your business model is? Seriously, have you thought about it at all?

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

The only solution is just for everyone to stop paying and let the industries go bankrupt.
I kinda want the industry to collapse for how much it's holding progress back.

 

[otake]

Well there's a shocker; a person who admittedly works in broadcast proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement?!

oK.

Have you ever taken a moment and thought about how fucking absurd your business model is? Seriously, have you thought about it at all?

My business model? I work in the industry, I don't own it nor do I decide the rules.

Why should consumers have to pay $70-100 for a 200 channel package (Which possesses a whopping 5-10 channels they actually want to watch) only to sit through an endless string of 5-minute blocks of content intertwined with 3-minute blocks of advertisements? Why should they pay that money for programming that is permanently emblazoned with the network brand? Why should they pay that money for programming in which those 5-minute blocks of content are themselves interrupted intermittently with float-over motion ads that take up 25% of the screen?

They don't. It's a choice. The broadcast network purchased the licenses to air that content. They paid for it, they decide how they sell it to the consumer. It's up to the consumer to decide wether it's worth the price or not. There's no forcing here. Consumers can get satellite service, cable service, netflix, hulu or they can just put rabbit ears on top of their tvs. Even better, they can choose to not watch tv at all.

DVDs and games have an entirely different set of questions that need be answered. Why should consumers pay for DVDs that nag them about the evils of copyright infringement? They've already purchased the damned movie. Why shouldn't I be allowed to back up the content that I've purchased? Why should I have to go through increasingly unreliable measures to prove that I purchased the game, spanning from limited-use serial keys to requirements of always-active internet connections for constant calls to a home server?

I don't know what you're describing here. I've never had to prove I own a move to anyone. I've seen an FBI warning at the beginning of a picture. Last about 2 seconds... By the way, you are allowed to backup the content. Read the FBI warning. What you can't do is redistribute.

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

None, it's still illegal. You are consuming media you did not pay for. If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch it.

 

[WickedAngel]

You are consuming media you did not pay for.

And I'll continue to do it. The only difference now is that I'm pissed with the industry and I'll make it my personal goal to teach every single person I meet about encrypting their traffic.

People will pay when these industries start listening to their demands. Certain content providers are listening; Steam is one of the best examples. As they grow, they will put people like your employers out of business and you'll only have yourselves to blame.

 

[MMaRsu]

Yeah, that is stealing. The producers don't want you doing that. Then you won't buy the dvd! You're about to feel the wrath of Obama!

Who says I wont buy the dvd? If a show/movie is good enough I actually like to buy them, since I feel they've deserved my purchase.

I can't just go buying movies/shows on a whim and hope they'll be good enough to stay in my collection..

 

[otake]

Who says I wont buy the dvd? If a show/movie is good enough I actually like to buy them, since I feel they've deserved my purchase.

I can't just go buying movies/shows on a whim and hope they'll be good enough to stay in my collection..

Then don't.

People here seem to be under the assumption that they have a right to watch whatever they want, whenever they want for free. This is not reality.

 

[syllogism]

Who says I wont buy the dvd? If a show/movie is good enough I actually like to buy them, since I feel they've deserved my purchase.

I can't just go buying movies/shows on a whim and hope they'll be good enough to stay in my collection..

Then don't. You can make the same argument about games; not all of them have demos.

 

[otake]

And I'll continue to do it. The only difference now is that I'm pissed with the industry and I'll make it my personal goal to teach every single person I meet about encrypting their traffic.

People will pay when these industries start listening to their demands. Certain content providers are listening; Steam is one of the best examples. As they grow, they will put people like your employers out of business and you'll only have yourselves to blame.

Nah, that ain't going to happen. More regulation will come before that. It's more likely, and easier, to prosecute you.

Encrypting traffic? Teach a lesson? Are you trying to Astrolad me?

 

[FLEABttn]

And I'll continue to do it. The only difference now is that I'm pissed with the industry and I'll make it my personal goal to teach every single person I meet about encrypting their traffic.

People will pay when these industries start listening to their demands. Certain content providers are listening; Steam is one of the best examples. As they grow, they will put people like your employers out of business and you'll only have yourselves to blame.

You can make demands without breaking the law. Saying you're sticking it to the man until they change their ways is just another rationalization for your piracy.


You're not entitled to entertainment. Knock off your entitlement complex.

 

[MMaRsu]

Then don't. You can make the same argument about games; not all of them have demos.

I don't do the same for games, I buy them after great impressions etc.

I actually do the same for movies/tv shows, but not everything since that would be close to impossible. Many movies/shows I buy after GAF impressions or general reviews. But not everything gets reviewed enough or has impressions that makes me want to buy them.

If not for piracy I would be oblivious to many movies and tv shows I wouldn't have bought otherwise.

 

[WickedAngel]

Nah, that ain't going to happen. More regulation will come before that. It's more likely, and easier, to prosecute you.

Encrypting traffic? Teach a lesson? Are you trying to Astrolad me?

Who said anything about teaching a lesson? You don't have to personally adopt the level of idiocy that your industry exudes.

As far as prosecution goes; nobody will care. It will function in much the same way that it does now in that it will be a reverse lottery that does nothing to stem the flow of file sharing. This country doesn't have the time, money, or employees to take file sharing on in any meaningful way.

You can make demands without breaking the law. Saying you're sticking it to the man until they change their ways is just another rationalization for your piracy.


You're not entitled to entertainment. Knock off your entitlement complex.

You're speaking to someone with a library of over 500 store-bought DVDs, just so you know.

People have been making demands for over a decade and they have largely gone unanswered. These industries are reacting now but it's quite obvious that they have completely missed the message.

 

[Mudkips]

And I'll continue to do it. The only difference now is that I'm pissed with the industry and I'll make it my personal goal to teach every single person I meet about encrypting their traffic.

People will pay when these industries start listening to their demands. Certain content providers are listening; Steam is one of the best examples. As they grow, they will put people like your employers out of business and you'll only have yourselves to blame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU#t=17s

Many people will not pay when the industry starts listening to demands. There are certain people who will go out of their way just to stick it to the man.

Even when content is offered for whatever price you want, unencumbered, people still feel compelled to steal it.

From your posts, you seem like one such person. If this is the case, then you're the reason legitimate customers have to put up with the bullshit you moan about. Fuck you.

You're speaking to someone with a library of over 500 store-bought DVDs, just so you know.

How does this justifies you're theft of other things? Does it make you some sort of expert? Are you entitled to free content because you've paid for X?

 

[otake]

Who said anything about teaching a lesson? You don't have to personally adopt the level of idiocy that your industry exudes.

As far as prosecution goes; nobody will care. It will function in much the same way that it does now in that it will be a reverse lottery that does nothing to stem the flow of file sharing. This country doesn't have the time, money, or employees to take file sharing on in any meaningful way.




You're speaking to someone with a library of over 500 store-bought DVDs, just so you know.

People have been making demands for over a decade and they have largely gone unanswered.

Yeah they can. But you don't have to take my word for it. We'll both just watch history unfold.

 

[WarMacheen]

My concern is with this "thought provision". Outright bullshit. I search stuff all the time without actually pirating anything. Come and get me assholes.

RATM

 

[WickedAngel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU#t=17s

Many people will not pay when the industry starts listening to demands. There are certain people who will go out of their way just to stick it to the man.

Even when content is offered for whatever price you want, unencumbered, people still feel compelled to steal it.

From your posts, you seem like one such person. If this is the case, then you're the reason legitimate customers have to put up with the bullshit you moan about. Fuck you.

You don't know me but you can fuck right off with that holier-than-thou bullshit you fucking cunt.

 

[FLEABttn]

You're speaking to someone with a library of over 500 store-bought DVDs, just so you know.

People have been making demands for over a decade and they have largely gone unanswered.

So it's okay that you download media you don't buy because you've bought a lot of other media. Again, still just a justification for your entitlement complex.

People have been making demands while pirating content and then wonder why the entertainment industry is confused. You're sending mixed messages.

 

[Skiptastic]

People have been making demands for over a decade and they have largely gone unanswered. These industries are reacting now but it's quite obvious that they have completely missed the message.

You'll have to enlighten me on the "demands" being made that the industry ignores that would justify your illegal activities.

 

[otake]

You don't know me but you can fuck right off with that holier-than-thou bullshit you fucking cunt.

Wicked!

 

[Barrett2]

I would be more sympathetic to Federal efforts to curb copyright violations if they weren't simultaneously granting monopoly status to media companies, IP providers, and every other big business conglomerate that flashed a little cash in Washington.

Hope and Change.

 

[MMaRsu]

You don't know me but you can fuck right off with that holier-than-thou bullshit you fucking cunt.

:lol

 

[Kai Dracon]

The straw retort that keeps coming up is "dur, it's STEALING and that's BAD and WICKED."

The difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement" can actually be pretty vast. What most people are upset about - or at least rolling their eyes over - are idiotic, ignorant, and ham-fisted thinking as symbolized by Biden's foolish remark.

You won't solve this problem as long as the over-reaction and disingenous blame game surrounding it continues. People aren't that stupid; they know when their intelligence is being insulted. Copyright infringement can be a problem for businesses, but right now it is also a huge scape goat and kids downloading some mp3s or a copy of Star Wars are being recontexualized into seedy criminals who are bringing down freedom and capitalism as we know it.

As with every situation like this the problem will only be made worse by treating the public as the enemy for the benefit of corporations.

Even at the most extreme end, if we were to actually equate downloading a copy of a song that nobody can prove is a "lost sale", it is batshit insane to claim that this is literally the same as a smash n' grab heist at a CD store and the same kinds of damages have been done, and it warrants the same response.

Truth is, a new situation has come about, old companies are flailing around in panic because as far as they're concerned, it just means a threat to their profits, and they're doing their best to slot the new problem into an old round hole to try and control it.

 

[WickedAngel]

You'll have to enlighten me on the "demands" that are being made the industry ignores that would justify your illegal activities.

Well there's a shocker; a person who admittedly works in broadcast proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement?!

Have you ever taken a moment and thought about how fucking absurd your business model is? Seriously, have you thought about it at all?

Why should consumers have to pay $70-100 for a 200 channel package (Which possesses a whopping 5-10 channels they actually want to watch) only to sit through an endless string of 5-minute blocks of content intertwined with 3-minute blocks of advertisements? Why should they pay that money for programming that is permanently emblazoned with the network brand? Why should they pay that money for programming in which those 5-minute blocks of content are themselves interrupted intermittently with float-over motion ads that take up 25% of the screen?

DVDs and games have an entirely different set of questions that need be answered. Why should consumers pay for DVDs that nag them about the evils of copyright infringement? They've already purchased the damned movie. Why shouldn't I be allowed to back up the content that I've purchased? Why should I have to go through increasingly unreliable measures to prove that I purchased the game, spanning from limited-use serial keys to requirements of always-active internet connections for constant calls to a home server?

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

Television:

1. People should be able to piece together the content they want. If a channel can't stand on its own merits by viewership, it shouldn't exist.
2. If people paying for content, they shouldn't have to endure a never-ending stream of ever-intrusive advertisements (Be they 3-minute blocks of noise, omnipresent brand logos emblazoned over content, or obnoxious motion ads that take up 20% of the screen).

DVDs:

If people are purchasing DVDs, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Nag screens informing them of how illegal copyright infringement is.
2. DRM. The content is purchased; they should be able to copy it to any medium they wish.
3. Regional lockouts.

Games:

If people are purchasing games, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Serial keys.
2. Limited-installations.
3. Always-on connections that require an intermittent phone home to make sure the game isn't any less legal than it was a few minutes ago.
4. DRM that prevents people from making backups of their content.

*Edit*

Will people still continue to pirate after those changes occur? Always. This isn't really about them, though; this is about the way that these industries treat their paying customers. Pirates don't have to deal with any of the shit that I just listed. People want easy, affordable access to content and they want to be able to put that content on whichever device they choose. Provide them with that and a lot of them will happily pay for the privilege.

 

[Hugbot]

This new "war on piracy" strikes me as just another giant moneyhole. We'll hit some people with fines they'll never be able to pay, some sites will get shut down and replaced within weeks, and piracy will continue with pirates being a little more cautious. There are way more effective things we could be doing with that money.

And seriously fuck that thoughtcrime bit at the end. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to be searching for things, and with no data transferred I can't see how you can call it a crime.

 

[Madman]

The straw retort that keeps coming up is "dur, it's STEALING and that's BAD and WICKED."

The difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement" can actually be pretty vast. What most people are upset about - or at least rolling their eyes over - are idiotic, ignorant, and ham-fisted thinking as symbolized by Biden's foolish remark.

You won't solve this problem as long as the over-reaction and disingenous blame game surrounding it continues. People aren't that stupid; they know when their intelligence is being insulted. Copyright infringement can be a problem for businesses, but right now it is also a huge scape goat and kids downloading some mp3s or a copy of Star Wars are being recontexualized into seedy criminals who are bringing down freedom and capitalism as we know it.

As with every situation like this the problem will only be made worse by treating the public as the enemy for the benefit of corporations.

Even at the most extreme end, if we were to actually equate downloading a copy of a song that nobody can prove is a "lost sale", it is batshit insane to claim that this is literally the same as a smash n' grab heist at a CD store and the same kinds of damages have been done, and it warrants the same response.

Truth is, a new situation has come about, old companies are flailing around in panic because as far as they're concerned, it just means a threat to their profits, and they're doing their best to slot the new problem into an old round hole to try and control it.

Ok then, what will solve this problem? You (and others here) always seem to offer that there is a solution to this problem that doesn't involve stopping people from downloading things for free. So what is it?

Edit: Just to clarify, I have no interest in getting into this debate, since I am pretty much uninvolved. Unless that bill passes, which I doubt it will.

 

[VGChampion]

Well there's a shocker; a person who admittedly works in broadcast proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the difference between stealing and copyright infringement?!

Have you ever taken a moment and thought about how fucking absurd your business model is? Seriously, have you thought about it at all?

Why should consumers have to pay $70-100 for a 200 channel package (Which possesses a whopping 5-10 channels they actually want to watch) only to sit through an endless string of 5-minute blocks of content intertwined with 3-minute blocks of advertisements? Why should they pay that money for programming that is permanently emblazoned with the network brand? Why should they pay that money for programming in which those 5-minute blocks of content are themselves interrupted intermittently with float-over motion ads that take up 25% of the screen?

DVDs and games have an entirely different set of questions that need be answered. Why should consumers pay for DVDs that nag them about the evils of copyright infringement? They've already purchased the damned movie. Why shouldn't I be allowed to back up the content that I've purchased? Why should I have to go through increasingly unreliable measures to prove that I purchased the game, spanning from limited-use serial keys to requirements of always-active internet connections for constant calls to a home server?

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

You know, I sort of agree with what you're getting at but then you have to think. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But no matter what you still don't have the right to pirate whatever it is because you don't agree with the distribution method. If you want to watch something provided by someone else, you have to pay for what they ask.

And as the above poster says, yeah, in a perfect world we could choose exactly what we want but you know what? The world doesn't work like that in most cases. That just goes back to my earlier saying. If you want what someone else provides, you have to play by their terms.

 

[Barrett2]

The straw retort that keeps coming up is "dur, it's STEALING and that's BAD and WICKED."

The difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement" can actually be pretty vast. What most people are upset about - or at least rolling their eyes over - are idiotic, ignorant, and ham-fisted thinking as symbolized by Biden's foolish remark.

You won't solve this problem as long as the over-reaction and disingenous blame game surrounding it continues. People aren't that stupid; they know when their intelligence is being insulted. Copyright infringement can be a problem for businesses, but right now it is also a huge scape goat and kids downloading some mp3s or a copy of Star Wars are being recontexualized into seedy criminals who are bringing down freedom and capitalism as we know it.

As with every situation like this the problem will only be made worse by treating the public as the enemy for the benefit of corporations.

Even at the most extreme end, if we were to actually equate downloading a copy of a song that nobody can prove is a "lost sale", it is batshit insane to claim that this is literally the same as a smash n' grab heist at a CD store and the same kinds of damages have been done, and it warrants the same response.

Truth is, a new situation has come about, old companies are flailing around in panic because as far as they're concerned, it just means a threat to their profits, and they're doing their best to slot the new problem into an old round hole to try and control it.

I know very little about the current laws about this stuff, but the thing that amazes me is how you can justify criminal fines against someone for downloading a single song that are literally thousands of times the replacement value. It's bizarre, you would think that because there is no literal inventory to refill, etc., or other tangible costs associated with normal theft, then the penalties for digital "theft" / copyright infringement would be lower, because it's more difficult to determine damages. Instead, we fine someone thousands of dollars for downloading a single song; without needing to prove (i) it actually is a lost sale, (ii) there was any replacement cost, (iii) it affected inventory or availability in any way, etc..

This new "war on piracy" strikes me as just another giant moneyhole. We'll hit some people with fines they'll never be able to pay, some sites will get shut down and replaced within weeks, and piracy will continue with pirates being a little more cautious. There are way more effective things we could be doing with that money.

And seriously fuck that thoughtcrime bit at the end. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to be searching for things, and with no data transferred I can't see how you can call it a crime.

I see too many similarities to the war on drugs. You make public examples of a tiny group of infringers by leveling insane penalties against them, basically hoping their punishment will deter others.

 

[Vieo]

I always knew the Wild West days of the Internets would come to an end eventually.

 

[grumble]

This war on piracy won't work, but I hope it does. Pirates are scum, including all the pirates in this thread trying to validate their thefts.

 

[FLEABttn]

Pirates are scum, including all the pirates in this thread trying to validate their thefts.

You don't understand, man, I bought The Beatles box set, I'm owed this Deadmau5 CD.

 

[Dresden]

Really don't care so long as they leave my animu alone.

 

[Extollere]

For the most part, I am "okay" with this. Just don't take away my PureTnA OBAMA, and we cool.

 

[NinjaFridge]

You don't know me but you can fuck right off with that holier-than-thou bullshit you fucking cunt.

You totally sound like a mature, rational person.

 

[Anerythristic]

Sooo, I guess he lost the "young voter" demo in the next election?

 

[Mudkips]

You don't know me but you can fuck right off with that holier-than-thou bullshit you fucking cunt.

:lol
Truth hurts much?

Television:

1. People should be able to piece together the content they want. If a channel can't stand on its own merits by viewership, it shouldn't exist.
2. If people paying for content, they shouldn't have to endure a never-ending stream of ever-intrusive advertisements (Be they 3-minute blocks of noise, omnipresent brand logos emblazoned over content, or obnoxious motion ads that take up 20% of the screen).

People do not have an intrinsic right to free or cheap entertainment.
Channels do not pop up out of the ether, nor do they get free content to broadcast out.
A local broadcaster will spend many millions just to set up and maintain their equipment.
Just because you don't like a certain programming lineup doesn't mean shit. Guess what? Lots of people like American Idol and The View. If you only want 2 programs from a specific network, then just watch those two programs. You do not have a right to buy the content you want a-la-carte.

Advertising is necessary for the industry to exist. Station logo overlays are essentially required by law. Broadcasters must identify themselves every so often. This is why you have station logos. This is why the radio says "YOU'RE LISTENING TO 98.4 KTRD THE TARD! Nintey-eight poooooint four! The TARD!". This is why the announcer at a baseball game will say "And as we get ready enter the 6th inning, we'll pause for a moment for station identification" followed by a voice over, or sometimes even a beeping code.

I agree that advertising is annoying and that I don't like giant overlays of promos for shit, or a giant "TV-14" logo covering what I want to see. But tough shit. If you don't like it don't watch it. You do not have some right to get the content without those things.

DVDs:

If people are purchasing DVDs, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Nag screens informing them of how illegal copyright infringement is.
2. DRM. The content is purchased; they should be able to copy it to any medium they wish.
3. Regional lockouts.

Regardless of your opinion, which I agree with except for reasonable regional lockouts, the simple fact is that they do have to put up with that shit, and that's the law. The correct response is to get the law changed. The incorrect response is to cowardly pirate shit, rip out DRM, etc. Your actions only serve to bolster their arguments for putting the restrictions in. You're self-defeating.

Games:

If people are purchasing games, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Serial keys.
2. Limited-installations.
3. Always-on connections that require an intermittent phone home to make sure the game isn't any less legal than it was a few minutes ago.
4. DRM that prevents people from making backups of their content.

I agree that they shouldn't. And they should protest it by not buying the game. Turning around and pirating the game is self-defeating. It makes them put more restrictions in place. You're fucking it up for the rest of us.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about, you just have a terrible sense of entitlement.

 

[WickedAngel]

You totally sound like a mature, rational person.

This is me caring what you think.

 

[Skiptastic]

Television:

1. People should be able to piece together the content they want. If a channel can't stand on its own merits by viewership, it shouldn't exist. If this was the way that content providers believed they could make the most money off their product, it would have been the format years ago.

2. If people paying for content, they shouldn't have to endure a never-ending stream of ever-intrusive advertisements (Be they 3-minute blocks of noise, omnipresent brand logos emblazoned over content, or obnoxious motion ads that take up 20% of the screen). Then you'd encourage not having other corporations subsidize your entertainment, but instead pass the costs on to you? You don't think that would raise prices on TV (cable especially), leading to less people with access? Maybe your ever intrusive advertisements you hate allow a larger population of people to enjoy the content you want to see.

DVDs:

If people are purchasing DVDs, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Nag screens informing them of how illegal copyright infringement is. This is likely to prevent "ignorance" arguments (i.e. I didn't know copying this was illegal therefore you can't find me guilty).
2. DRM. The content is purchased; they should be able to copy it to any medium they wish. I don't necessarily disagree with this.
3. Regional lockouts. Probably a legal issue due to different laws for each region. Without a unified global rule book, you'll always have certain regions allowing/disallowing content and such.

Games:

If people are purchasing games, they shouldn't have to put up with:

1. Serial keys.
2. Limited-installations.
3. Always-on connections that require an intermittent phone home to make sure the game isn't any less legal than it was a few minutes ago.
4. DRM that prevents people from making backups of their content.

To be honest, most of that stuff affects PC gaming, and I'm more of a console gamer. Consoles are a better (not perfect) means to preventing piracy, so they don't require this type of stuff.

Responses in bold. I don't agree with everything in the law, nor do I necessarily agree with all business models and how they run their operations. But do you know how I react? I don't buy cable and I watch it through Hulu or Netflix or something like that. I don't go out and steal it.

And just to answer something:

Once you get past all of that, you have to answer one final question; what proof do you have that the people who pirated your content would have purchased it anyways?

When you catch a shoplifter, you don't ask the thief if he would have bought the candy bar if he knew he would get caught. The act is illegal and he gets punished for the act.

 

[WickedAngel]

When you catch a shoplifter, you don't ask the thief if he would have bought the candy bar if he knew he would get caught. The act is illegal and he gets punished for the act.

This really doesn't need to be covered again, does it? The entire movement is based on the fallacy that a pirated copy of content is a lost sale when there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. The motives of a shoplifter are unnecessary because theft physically deprives the shop owner of merchandise that would have otherwise been sold.

As to the other portions:

No, I don't believe content providers who focus on television would make the effort to move even if the move was still profitable. They're profitable now and would rather blame any misgivings they have on a scapegoat than face the reality that people are increasingly annoyed at the level of intrusion that has become standard fare in the medium.

Ignorance to the law has never prevented a prosecution. The court system doesn't concern itself with those matters.

 

[gutter_trash]

yay! more little people sent to jail, more people getting sued for money by large corporations!

don't you have a an oil leak spilling going on to stop?

 

[jman2050]

If your argument against piracy relies on the totally inappropriate assertion that copyright infringement is comparable to theft, then you've already undermined your whole argument.

 

[FLEABttn]

If your argument against piracy relies on the totally inappropriate assertion that copyright infringement is comparable to theft, then you've already undermined your whole argument.

In that one is physical and a physical loss is incurred versus one being digital and the "loss" is non-existent in the physical realm, sure.

In that you're illegally using something you didn't pay for, no.

There is a rational argument, you're choosing to ignore it.

 

[Skiptastic]

No, I don't believe content providers who focus on television would make the effort to move even if the move was still profitable. They're profitable now and would rather blame any misgivings they have on a scapegoat than face the reality that people are increasingly annoyed at the level of intrusion that has become standard fare in the medium.

Then, as said, you abstain from purchasing until the problem has been rectified. You don't have the right to the entertainment you want in the way you want it. It has to be done in a proper, legal manner.

Ignorance to the law has never prevented a prosecution. The court system doesn't concern itself with those matters.

I don't necessarily believe that it would, I'm just saying that there has to be some sort of agreed upon legal reason why a company would put the FBI warning there. If they could prosecute you regardless, why bother wasting your time and theirs by inserting that? I doubt they just want to be annoying to their customers.

And copyright infringement is comparable to theft, though not equivalent. There should be different laws to both. I'm arguing for the enforcement of copyright laws to the full extent.

 

[WickedAngel]

In that one is physical and a physical loss is incurred versus one being digital and the "loss" is non-existent in the physical realm, sure.

In that you're illegally using something you didn't pay for, no.

There is a rational argument, you're choosing to ignore it.

The entire basis for going after piracy revolves around revenue loss that hasn't been proven yet.

 

[Dude Abides]

Daily Tech article is wildly overblown. Not surprisingly, GAF does not click through, gets outraged, looks foolish.

 

[ColtraineGF]

Well, this thread took an odd, if not expected turn.

Maybe it would help if I linked the actual press release so that people can read it instead of that blog post, so they can base their arguments off of what the release actually discusses:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010...tegic-plan-combat-intellectual-property-theft

 

[LM4sure]

Who says I wont buy the dvd? If a show/movie is good enough I actually like to buy them, since I feel they've deserved my purchase.

I can't just go buying movies/shows on a whim and hope they'll be good enough to stay in my collection..

No, I agree with you, but the producers don't. It's bullshit if you ask me, especially if you are downloading a tv show that is on basic cable that is free to anyone who has a tv.

They only see the negative side of things. I remember when I was back in college my roommate had downloaded episodes of the Sopranos and we watched it and it was fantastic. We actually ended up subscribing to HBO because we wanted to continue watching the show. And I've been subscribed to HBO since that time, so for that last 7 years or so. HBO made a lot of money off of me because my friend pirated one of their shows.

 

[FLEABttn]

No, I agree with you, but the producers don't. It's bullshit if you ask me, especially if you are downloading a tv show that is on basic cable that is free to anyone who has a tv.

Free as in paid for through commercials. Downloaded shows not from legal avenues have commercial edited out.

 

[otake]

The entire basis for going after piracy revolves around revenue loss that hasn't been proven yet.

Well yeah because the person is consuming media he didn't pay for. Whether you would buy it anyway or not does not matter in this context. You are consuming something you didn't pay for.

 

[LM4sure]

Free as in paid for through commercials. Downloaded shows not from legal avenues have commercial edited out.

Well I watch everything on my dvr so I fast forward through commercials anyway. This is true for many, many people. So that is not a valid argument.