Wikipedia supports piracy

RegEdit said:
All I know is that for 10 years artists have been powerless to stop piracy of their stuff.
Click to expand...

So what was different 10 years ago? 12 years ago Gnutella was developed which is what Napster, KaZaa, Morpheus, etc. was based on. But really, pirating has been going on since the start of mainstream computing. Whether it be a game or document shared on BBS's or 0-day FTP servers, the concept is much older. Just like when the BBS's changed hands to FTP servers, torrent technology has succeeded that. Just like video and tape cassettes were supposed to be the "fall of the movie and recording industries" like they said 30 years ago, well here we are again. (And believe it or not, both industries are still here.)

If you're that worried that someone will steal your software, don't publish it or sell it. If you're that worried that your indie movie will be stolen, don't film it. Despite what the MPAA and RIAA say, they do just fine. Avatar, the biggest grossing movie of all time, had worldwide sales of $2.78 BILLION. The total estimated illegal downloads sat right at 21 million. Total production costs are estimated at $237 million, meaning approximately 29 million people had to see it to break even. Putting an average spin on ticket prices at around $8 per person, that's 347.5 million people watched that movie.

I think they're doing OK. And don't even get me started on Microsoft and their $48 billion dollar sales on Windows 7 as of this past summer.
 
OK, now you're just arguing semantics. Obviously you are not -- nor indie producers or big production companies -- going out of business. The longer you keep thinking piracy is "stealing" the longer you're going to count it as a loss against your business. Nobody is taking your software or movies and reselling them as legitimate copies and taking money away from you or your business.

The people that download pirated software and movies are people that wouldn't have otherwise purchased them if they were $1. You can see that when you look at how many people download movies or songs when they can easily watch or listen to them from $0.99 to $3. The SOPA/PIPA legislation is going to -- in no way -- help the cause of anti-piracy any more than banning guns gets rid of all crime. It will happen one way or the other and once something is done to try to "help" crack down on things more, a new way to do it is quickly found.

So, a very easy idea would be: SOPA or PIPA passes and you successfully take down The Pirate Bay. Awesome. Except the word spread about their IP address. Oops... Ya, can't do anything about that. Take away their advertising? Another awesome. Except now their ads are served from Russia. Next move? Ya, that quickly went out the window. So are we then going to make it so we block all their IP address blocks because of it? Block all of Russia in some kind of virtual embargo? Did it stop them like you planned?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight piracy. What I'm saying is that it matters how it's done. Cutting the tail off a few snakes isn't going to kill the snakes, it's going to piss them off. And if you do it in the middle of a lot of other, harmless snakes, they're not going to like the dude with the butcher knife so much, whether or not you were "allowed to" or "within your rights".
 
OK, now you're just arguing semantics. Obviously you are not -- nor indie producers or big production companies -- going out of business. The longer you keep thinking piracy is "stealing" the longer you're going to count it as a loss against your business. Nobody is taking your software or movies and reselling them as legitimate copies and taking money away from you or your business.

The people that download pirated software and movies are people that wouldn't have otherwise purchased them if they were $1. You can see that when you look at how many people download movies or songs when they can easily watch or listen to them from $0.99 to $3. The SOPA/PIPA legislation is going to -- in no way -- help the cause of anti-piracy any more than banning guns gets rid of all crime. It will happen one way or the other and once something is done to try to "help" crack down on things more, a new way to do it is quickly found.
Click to expand...
Now you are just making stuff up. Piracy has cost the music industry a lot. This is a documented fact. Look at the numbers that began declining after Napster.
No they are not selling. They're making copies and giving the content away to others. That is obvious.
 
Is it even worth arguing that piracy has not cost IP producers money? Of course it has, otherwise they wouldn't be worried about it. Microsoft has every right to make billions from its products. Pirates do not have the right to steal MS's output and sell it without permission.

The question is not whether piracy is harmful to originators of IP but how best to address the problem. I think the prevailing view of the internet is that these new US laws are cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer and may have effects more harmful than the piracy itself.
 
The music industry tried to axe the radio because "people will record stuff from the air!"
The music industry tried to axe music tapes because "people will make copies for their friends!"

2 lame examples. Yet... here we are.
Music industry's still rich!

Thieves and rule-breakers have been around stealing music, stories, films, screenplays and candy from babies since entertainment was invented.
It's wrong (stealing = bad)---- but SOPA is just as wrong.

I have nothing to hide, but I'm not going to bare my soul (my internet history/EVERYTHING) to government suits who won't even let me watch certain trials, sessions or won't even honestly word their legislation (c'mon, the vague wording on the SOPA bill is intentional).

SOPA is a perfect example of the dangers of having people in gov't who aren't tech-savvy making important decisions about technology!

Sorry, ooolder crowd (generally), but you shouldn't be making BIG tech-related decisions--- at least not without A LOT of input from people who actually understand & don't work for the movie/music industry!
There's other industry's hurting from wrongdoings online, but not everyone can afford (multiple)direct liaisons to Washington.
 
Music industry's still rich!
Click to expand...
I'm not even going to debate how much piracy has hurt the industry. I know too many people who have lost their jobs, lost money on indie projects, etc. I personally have seen what it has done to releases of my own. Dreamworks stock has gone from about 40 to $17 since 2004. WHAT RELEVANCE DOES HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE MADE HAVE ON THIS DISCUSSION?
If an NFL team makes the playoffs should fans be able to loot the concession stands and steal jerseys just because the franchise is making lots of money? That's your logic. At least we know where you are coming from.
 
RegEdit said:
I'm not even going to debate how much piracy has hurt the industry. I know too many people who have lost their jobs, lost money on indie projects, etc. I personally have seen what it has done to releases of my own. Dreamworks stock has gone from about 40 to $17 since 2004. WHAT RELEVANCE DOES HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE MADE HAVE ON THIS DISCUSSION?
If an NFL team makes the playoffs should fans be able to loot the concession stands and steal jerseys just because the franchise is making lots of money? That's your logic. At least we know where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

No. You haven't seen the effects of piracy because you have no idea if it was actually piracy that caused those problems. Given the fluctuating state of the stock market, are you really going to equate DreamWorks' stock price with piracy????

Cause does not necessarily equal effect. Could a declining economy have played a part in what you've described? What about rising prices for music, movies, etc.? I'm not in favor of piracy. But I'm especially not in favor of giving the government a bigger hammer.

Until you can prove beyond the shadow of doubt that piracy has caused all the industry ills, you are just shilling the industry line, with no real knowledge of your own. And proving that is like proving the existence of God. Can't do it.

Additionally, protesting a bad law is NOT necessarily supporting illegality. What you are claiming is similar to stating that because I drive an automobile, I must be in favor of air pollution.


Rick
 
Last edited:
red12049 said:
No. You haven't seen the effects of piracy because you have no idea if it was actually piracy that caused those problems. Given the fluctuating state of the stock market, are you really going to equate DreamWorks' stock price with piracy????

Cause does not necessarily equal effect. Could a declining economy have played a part in what you've described? What about rising prices for music, movies, etc.? I'm not in favor of piracy. But I'm especially not in favor of giving the government a bigger hammer.

Until you can prove beyond the shadow of doubt that piracy has caused all the industry ills, you are just shilling the industry line, with no real knowledge of your own. And proving that is like proving the existence of God. Can't do it.

Rick
Click to expand...

I think that cuts both ways. The obvious answer is that people illegally downloading rather than buying means lost money. The statistics available show that it has cost them money albeit that those stats are produced by the music industry itself. So the extraordinary claim here seems to me to be that it hasn't cost them any money. So I would place the burden of proof there at least as much. I.e. can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that piracy does not cost producers money? I doubt it.
 
SOPA / PIPA is the result of Music / Movie industry failure to innovate and come up with a better business model. Louis CK just bypassed the regualar channels and sold his stand up for just $5 with direct download from his web site DRM free. He cleaered over $500,000 is just the first few days. Yes there are still people who pirated the video but he is proving people will pay for content if the price is reasonable. Please also look at the huge sucess of the Humble Indie Bundle games pricing and business model.
 
And is reply to Regedits statement "I know too many people who have lost their jobs, lost money on indie projects, etc."

We have all watched people who have failed to innovate or change loose their position in the market. I have watched countless newspapers close their doors due to them not embracing new media. Should the government pass a law against online news sites to protect those companies from going out of business?
 
pcpickup said:
SOPA / PIPA is the result of Music / Movie industry failure to innovate and come up with a better business model. Louis CK just bypassed the regualar channels and sold his stand up for just $5 with direct download from his web site DRM free. He cleaered over $500,000 is just the first few days. Yes there are still people who pirated the video but he is proving people will pay for content if the price is reasonable. Please also look at the huge sucess of the Humble Indie Bundle games pricing and business model.
Click to expand...
Dont forget iTunes or Steam. People WILL pay for things if its convenient and at the right price, even if its plastered all over the torrents.
 
MobileTechie said:
I think that cuts both ways. The obvious answer is that people illegally downloading rather than buying means lost money. The statistics available show that it has cost them money albeit that those stats are produced by the music industry itself. So the extraordinary claim here seems to me to be that it hasn't cost them any money. So I would place the burden of proof there at least as much. I.e. can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that piracy does not cost producers money? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

No, I couldn't. But I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on the OP.

Rick
 
red12049 said:
No, I couldn't. But I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on the OP.

Rick
Click to expand...

Well why don't do go a step further an make one? You appear to be doubting that people stealing IP hurts the originator of that IP. It either does or it doesn't. What do you think?

I think it's bound to personally and the evidence provided by industry groups representing music and video etc appear to support that view.

I can also see that stopping it might well be impossible, that the producers will need to embrace new ways of extracting cash and charge less and so on. It may be that they can end up selling more units for less in the end. I don't know. I can't see the future. But right now bands are earning less and are having to do more big stadium gigs and tours to make the money they used to.
 
Also, the music industry cries about lost profits.. Well A) we're in a down economy, and B) if you can buy the one good song off an album for 1 dollar vs the whole crappy album for 15, ya your sales are gonna go down a little.


I don't think a single valid study has come out of the US in the last 25 years. Most of the time a non bought out european study comes out and completely goes against everything produced by our completely bought out system
 
No. You haven't seen the effects of piracy because you have no idea if it was actually piracy that caused those problems. Given the fluctuating state of the stock market, are you really going to equate DreamWorks' stock price with piracy????
Click to expand...
Read the prior post. Someone made the false assertion that the film industry and the music industry has been essentially making money hand over fist and therefore it's OK to steal from them.
It's well documented that piracy has forced the record industry to change their business model. Instead of depending on revenue from album sales (whether physical CD's or digital albums) record companies now focus on making money off of touring. They have completely changed their contracts and requirements of bands to make allowances for declining album profits. You can't rewrite history in one forum post. The decline in total album sales began right around the time of Napster, not in 2008.

Putting aside discussion about profits, why shouldn't content owners be able to control unauthorized duplication of their own media? Do they NOT have that right because downloaders want to start a debate about the cause of loss of profits? To debate the cause of lost profits is a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top