Pirate bay

Quote:

---

If there is freedom of information, explain trade secrets to me, explain the right to privacy, and explain why I should pay to access a newspaper (even an electronic one) if I were guaranteed the right to information.

---

The idea does not belong to some person. It belongs to no thing but perhaps God. The exclusive right to copy or implement that idea is what the concept of copyright covers. For example, the idea of a compact disc and how to make one/manufacture them belongs to no person at all. In order to encourage creativity, because the artists or inventors will look for profit, a person is given the copy right or patent to implementing that idea for some period of time. The right to privacy has nothing to do witht the right to information which is simply that ideas do not belong to people. Right to privacy is freedom from government intervention in personal affairs. It's nothing to do w/ implementation of ideas. You pay for a newspaper, because they've rights to copying in regards to how they have expressed that idea. Because someone has discovered some mathematical theorem does not mean that they have exclusive rights to ever mentioning that theorem. That would be rediculous and that is where my comparison to the renaissance comes in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

nd I have read the posts. I don't know how you can accuse me of not reading posts simply because my posts are not in response to the whole thread but rather to certain points that people are trying to make.

---

I was complaining since I said it wasn't stealing, technically, and you still felt the need to respond. Let's just let this rest, I hate it when discussion start to be about word usage instead of the actual issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

The idea does not belong to some person. It belongs to no thing but perhaps God. The exclusive right to copy or implement that idea is what the concept of copyright covers. For example, the idea of a compact disc and how to make one/manufacture them belongs to no person at all. In order to encourage creativity, because the artists or inventors will look for profit, a person is given the copy right or patent to implementing that idea for some period of time.

---

Sure, but you have no right to the ideas of another if those aren't divulged do you ? You can't force someone to tell his ideas. You can have the same idea, a different matter entirely and part of the problem with IP, but you do not have the right to everything another person knows, if he isn't willing to share. You have freedom of thought, not freedom of information.

Quote:

---

The right to privacy has nothing to do witht the right to information which is simply that ideas do not belong to people.Right to privacy is freedom from government intervention in personal affairs. It's nothing to do w/ implementation of ideas.

---

I was thinking more about celebrities and invasion of privacy laws and such.

Quote:

---

You pay for a newspaper, because they've rights to copying in regards to how they have expressed that idea.

---

Same would apply to a game wouldn't it ? It's an implementation of an idea. (I agree)

Quote:

---

Because someone has discovered some mathematical theorem does not mean that they have exclusive rights to ever mentioning that theorem.

---

Math is explicity excluded from copyright. It is indeed an idea, in itself and not an implementation. Software is an implementation and such does not fall under some universal 'freedom of information' law.

Quote:

---

That would be rediculous and that is where my comparison to the renaissance comes in.

---

Err..paintings are implementation, concrete objects, so i don't see your point really. Besides, copyright expires, so no one has rights forever (just until 50 years after they're dead...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

You're looking at the wrong spot. The idea could be, for example, the game, you've the right to receive or give that game. Now to adquire the game you must pay in someway so you fullfil your obligations with the one who has the patent. There's a conflict between your right to receive ideas and the property rights of the owner. Just suppose that there's no regulation on the area and only this two values in a balance, wich of the two has more weight?

---

First off, the right of free speech means you can speak freely, that means you spread information, not receive it.
About the right to receive every and all information that exists, you may first want to ask your local intelligence agency before looking up a few things about spies...~;)

You have no right on the information that is a game, except if the owner/creator says so. And he may ask whatever he wants for that information. You are then free to give him what he wants or not, if you give it to him, you receive the right to own that information, not to copy it(except for private use, depending on the law). Everything else is is a crime/theft.

With software you do not buy the media or the code, you buy a license to use it.

EULA... End User License Agreement. You do not own the software and you normally do not have the rights to see how it works, nor do you have the right to distribute it.

Piracy of Software means the pirates are not willing to pay for the coders labour, the productions costs of the producers, quality control, writers etc.

There are positive ways in which companies are adapting to new technology. Probably the most obvious example is iTunes and how quickly it is distributing content around the world. Another example is how quick movies are going to DVD, this is great as a parent it is a logistics nightmare to organise for a movie session which allows babies to attend. Companies are adjusting to the new paradigm that it is content not media that they distribute.

However just because there is a lag time inbetween the technology being available and companies implementing it, does not mean that content can be freely ripped off and distributed.

Of course you don't get to read the EULA until you have paid for the product, which sounds backwards to me. Anyone here ever taken software back to the shop because you clicked "disagree" on the EULA? Do you reckon it would be easy to get your money back?

That said, there are no high motives behind software piracy and those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

If there is freedom of information, explain trade secrets to me, explain the right to privacy, and explain why I should pay to access a newspaper (even an electronic one) if I were guaranteed the right to information.

---

As every freedom tha the man possess in society it's not absolute. We're right in the business of determining its limits. But it has proved an elusive task.

Quote:

---

So, since I define information as purely abstract, and software is not, your argument still fails.

---

Let's make this as clear as I could put it: what you're violating by piracy is the copyright that the owner upholds over a given product. The copyright is constructed, only over the idea, hence it's the idea of the given game wich is protected, not the box, not the DVD, not the energy transmited from PC to PC. Was that clear enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

First off, the right of free speech means you can speak freely, that means you spread information, not receive it.
About the right to receive every and all information that exists, you may first want to ask your local intelligence agency before looking up a few things about spies...

---

The right of free speech, has historically, contained the right to give and receive information freely. I'm not talking about an actual absolute right to every information, I'm just making an hipotesis to see, in a balanced case, wich of the two values in play is the heavy one.

So as all lawyers do on the day is talk they should not get payed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

As every freedom tha the man possess in society it's not absolute. We're right in the business of determining its limits. But it has proved an elusive task.

---

That's like wondering when the "he needed killin' " defense would be valid. Society has set limits, live with them.

Quote:

---

Let's make this as clear as I could put it: what you're violating by piracy is the copyright that the owner upholds over a given product. The copyright is constructed, only over the idea, hence it's the idea of the given game wich is protected, not the box, not the DVD, not the energy transmited from PC to PC. Was that clear enough?

---

Copyright protects an implementation, not an idea as such, so you're wrong. (the idea can be partially protected with plagarism and such, but that's a different matter that doesn't apply here really). It's perfectly legal to discuss a book, its meaning, its characters and such, but it isn't legal to make a copy of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

The right of free speech, has historically, contained the right to give and receive information freely.

---

Yes receive information that has been given freely, I pointed this out a while ago...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'm not talking about an actual absolute right to every information,

---

That's new. So you suddenly agree that you don't have a right to information another person isn't willing to give, so you have no right to a game ? (were it strictly information even)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I'm just making an hipotesis to see, in a balanced case, wich of the two values in play is the heavy one.

---

One is an actual right of property, the other just doesn't make sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Of course you don't get to read the EULA until you have paid for the product, which sounds backwards to me. Anyone here ever taken software back to the shop because you clicked "disagree" on the EULA? Do you reckon it would be easy to get your money back?

---

I think pretty much any store here takes a game back that's been returned within 24hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So as all lawyers do on the day is talk they should not get payed...

---

:embarassed:

Next time you buy a house or need a will made out, keep that in mind ~:angry:

Besides, I think you mean politicians ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I think pretty much any store here takes a game back that's been returned within 24hours.

---

Yep, I can pretty much get Wal*Mart to take anything back.


Interesting discussion, here’s my 2 cents!

I think in a lot of cases it is piracy but in many cases I really don’t have a problem with it, and that is kind of weird for me, usually I would say arrest the criminals! But I find myself feeling very forgiving for 2 reasons.

1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.

2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.

I feel like a real rebel now. Fight the power! Down with the establishment! Stick it to the man! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.

---

Fascinating perspective. So the richer an organisation is, the less it deserves the protection of law? Is this a sliding scale?

Does this apply to rich people too? Should we tax them till they squeak?

For the record, I'm on the barricades with yesdachi :2thumbsup:

(By the by, the traditional mechanism for 'punching greedy corporations in the gut' is through not buying or using their products - especially M$ ~;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.

---

All companies want to make a profit though, you can hardly blame someone for being successful. Microsoft maybe since they've used and abused their monopoly position just a little too often. I don't want to defend those companies and their actions, but they're no more 'evil' than your average company, and they they manipulate prices is not much different than the way, say, car manufacturers do.

Most videogame developers aren't making a ton of money though, just look at all the bankruptcies, even publishers have a hard time, Eidos and atari are in almost constant debt, SEGA is still crawling out of debt after the Dreamcast debacle afaik. Even EA was losing money a few years ago now they made a profit of about 250 million $, which seems like a lot, but they are the biggest game developer/publisher out there. In comparison, Coca cola quaterly earnings are around a billion and Nike makes about $400 million quaterly. Microsoft lost over 4 billion $ on the Xbox.

Record labels might have made a lot of money, but to be fair, a lot of it went to the artists. Sure, Prince wrote 'Slave' on his face but he was living in a castle (which he still owns) at the time. Michael jackson is just now seeing the end of his fortune, and he still has most of the rights to the Beatles catalogue. Several one hit wonders are still rich.
Don't forget that in order to get a record promoted radio stations often have to be 'persuaded' to play a song and stores have to be 'convinced' that displaying the album in a noticable place is a good idea.
There's also the touring industry, with Clear Channel and Ticketmaster really ripping people off, but again, these are not the same people you are ripping off when pirating a song.

I wish I could find some more figures, most talk about revenue and not of profits :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

(By the by, the traditional mechanism for 'punching greedy corporations in the gut' is through not buying or using their products - especially M$ ~;) )

---

Traditionally there has not been file sharing. :wink:

Quote:

---

1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.

---

So I don't feel like spending money - thus entitling me to the product I desire!? I'm disappointed, yesdachi, I thought you had more sense.

I'm disappointed in you too, yesdachi. I thought you were better than that, your opinion disqualifies you from being cool.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

All companies want to make a profit though, you can hardly blame someone for being successful. Microsoft maybe since they've used and abused their monopoly position just a little too often. I don't want to defend those companies and their actions, but they're no more 'evil' than your average company, and they they manipulate prices is not much different than the way, say, car manufacturers do.

---

Now Doc, I never said they were “evil” and I would never blame someone for being successful… but I would look at them with a certain amount of contempt for enjoying such a large profit margin. I think it is their success that has instigated the file sharing phenomenon.

Part of me says Lie in the bed you have made and another part says we need to uphold the law and the law says, No Pirating. There is also a law that says the speed limit is 55 mph (at least in some places) but the police have the discretion to not pull you over for less than 10 over (that’s what a state trooper friend told me) in this file sharing situation I feel comfortable giving the police some discretion to leave casual pirates alone.


Side note but related:
I don’t think the video game industry is so volatile because of file sharing, I don’t think Dreamcast’s demise was related to file sharing (I actually have one :shrug:) but more a supply and demand issue.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

So I don't feel like spending money - thus entitling me to the product I desire!? I'm disappointed, yesdachi, I thought you had more sense.

---

GAH, my # 1 has stirred the pot too!

I never said “entitled”, sheese everyone is putting words in my mouth today. ~D

Let me clarify my meaning and see if it disappoints less. Say someone would never in a million years buy Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea” but if they can download it via file sharing and use it as the sound their computer makes every time they get new mail, well I think that’s ok I would even say it was ok if that someone downloaded the entire album listened to it once and kept it in a folder that gathered dust. Sure it is pirating but there is no lost revenue because it would have never been bought anyway. (BTW I do not have Little Spanish Flea nor do I plan on downloading it)

Downloading in place of purchasing and downloading with the intent of redistributing is real pirating and should be stopped but why not let someone enjoy something via file sharing that they never would have purchased otherwise. Maybe they will actually like it and buy the CD?

Still disappointed?


And Kanamori, who made you the cool police? I know cool, it oozes from my very being! I am cool like the other side of the pillow, that’s cool.:cool4:
Humm, people that have to say they are something usually aren’t, are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Now Doc, I never said they were “evil” and I would never blame someone for being successful… but I would look at them with a certain amount of contempt for enjoying such a large profit margin. I think it is their success that has instigated the file sharing phenomenon.

---

You (still) seem to imply doing it out of some sort of 'vengance'

Quote:

---

Part of me says Lie in the bed you have made and another part says we need to uphold the law and the law says, No Pirating. There is also a law that says the speed limit is 55 mph (at least in some places) but the police have the discretion to not pull you over for less than 10 over (that’s what a state trooper friend told me) in this file sharing situation I feel comfortable giving the police some discretion to leave casual pirates alone.

---

I really liked filesharing when it originally appeared, I never had had acces to so much great music from obscure bands before, I bought a cd a week and still couldn't keep with what I wanted to get. I'm really not as 'anti' as I may seem from this thread. I certainly don't want to lock up each and every pirate, and I don't think someone having the odd illegal mp3 on his ipod should seriously worry. There's also a difference (to me...) whether you are pirating a song because you can't get it anywhere else, or emulating an old nes game or whether you're downloading albums before they're released and game the week they are.
I also think there is a difference between copying because you're curious (works, with music, not really with games or videos) and just want to check a band out, or if you're downloading an entire Metalica album you could have gotten in the shop for less than ten bucks easily, because you want to own that album.
Yes, both are still illegal, but one is done out of curiosity and the other is simply done out of desire for a product. One can lead to a sale, and the other can't.

Quote:

---

Side note but related:
I don’t think the video game industry is so volatile because of file sharing, I don’t think Dreamcast’s demise was related to file sharing (I actually have one :shrug:) but more a supply and demand issue.:bow:

---

Well, depends on what you call volatile, they certainly aren't as stable as the other branches of the entertainment industry.
My point was that they aren't all swimming in money, laughing at the common buyer. Most developers actually need the money. Most videogames make a loss (that much is true), so developers, and certainly publishers aren't so prone to taking risks. When a good, original game comes out, like Shogun back in the day, or Vampire Bloodlines, then I really think people should support it and not pirate it, because that will only mean we will get less good, original games in the future, and more FIFA, because that's what sells (unbelievable but true).
Piracy does influence the economy, but I'm afraid that instead of sticking it to the Man, you're sticking it to the common man. After the music industry went into a crisis it were the indie bands and smaller (sub)labels that got it the worst, bubblegum pop reigns as strong as ever. I gave the (admittedly non-provable) example of Microsoft and the Windows monopoly being partially due to piracy. That's the true wrong, I guess. It's not that the big companies aren't making more money, it's that the small, original ones aren't making enough anymore to sustain themselves. So I really don't care when people pirate the latest FIFA or NBL game, it doesn't effect me, but thinking about how great companies like Black Isle (Fallout !) or Looking Glass (System Shock, Thief) *might* actually still be here if the people who enjoyed their games had all played legal copies, well, it makes me a little sad. Piracy undermines the market, and not for the better. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodsPetMonkey

:embarassed:

Next time you buy a house or need a will made out, keep that in mind ~:angry:

Besides, I think you mean politicians ~;)

---

I was actually referring to our anachist lawyer Soulforged and his idea that ideas are free because they are not physical and the same applies to speech. If that is the case people should not have to pay for anyform of speech including a lawyer defending your in court.

Also if you look at the degrees politicians get, quite a few are lawyers... so lawyers have a lot to answer for. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Why do university scientist students use law undergraduates nowadays instead of guinea pigs?

a) The law firms made them cull out as many graduates as possible to decrease supply and keep the partners rates up.
b) Science students don't get attached as much to Law students as guinea pigs.
c) Law students will do things that no self respecting guinea pig will ever do.
d) Law students are more common in universities then guinea pigs.
e) All of the above.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

That's like wondering when the "he needed killin' " defense would be valid. Society has set limits, live with them.

---

I live just fine with them, do not worry.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Copyright protects an implementation, not an idea as such, so you're wrong. (the idea can be partially protected with plagarism and such, but that's a different matter that doesn't apply here really). It's perfectly legal to discuss a book, its meaning, its characters and such, but it isn't legal to make a copy of it.

---

My bad. It's the implementation of the idea, the right to exclusivelly copy it. In that form it's abstract, however.

Quote:

---

Yes receive information that has been given freely, I pointed this out a while ago...

---

This was to Husar mate.:oops:

Quote:

---

That's new. So you suddenly agree that you don't have a right to information another person isn't willing to give, so you have no right to a game ? (were it strictly information even)

---

Not without paying for it. The right is there, in that you're correct, but it's not freely.

Quote:

---

One is an actual right of property, the other just doesn't make sense...

---

It does make sense if you consider they're in a balance. Though you answered, and that's an step. So in the actual situation we now know in what direction we should lead the people: to respect private property and reject net-piracy. How do we do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.

---

If you use a pirated copy to make something should you be allowed to sell the end product or any services that you create by using pirated software?

It is the same thing as shoplifting and how the costs are then passed onto the buying customers.

I do not see how being poor makes it automatically ethical to steal something. Nor do I see how a target being rich means it is automatically ethical to steal something as well. Afterall it is not a need that is being stolen, it is often a game or song which is purely a luxary good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I do not see how being poor makes it automatically ethical to steal something. Nor do I see how a target being rich means it is automatically ethical to steal something as well. Afterall it is not a need that is being stolen, it is often a game or song which is purely a luxary good.

---

Another set of words put into my mouth,:laugh4: I haven’t said anything about stealing being ethical if the thief is poor. What I said is that I think a lot of the files being shared would not have been bought by most of the people sharing them. The result is that there more people having something that they would not have had if it wasn’t “free”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

You (still) seem to imply doing it out of some sort of 'vengance'

---

No Vengeance, just contempt. ~D

Contempt = lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike (the dislike is from them enjoying a large profit margin while I'm still paying $16 bucks a CD, Fat Cats! shaking fist)



I agree that the video game industry is not as stable as other branches of the entertainment industry. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Another set of words put into my mouth,:laugh4: I haven’t said anything about stealing being ethical if the thief is poor. What I said is that I think a lot of the files being shared would not have been bought by most of the people sharing them. The result is that there more people having something that they would not have had if it wasn’t “free”.

---

Which is fine if the shared files are shareware or free for public use.

If it is something is a pay for use, then using them without paying for them is stealing.

yesdachi - let's look again at the case of DLing Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea." Firstly, in this modern age of ours there is generally ways you explore the content for free without violating any laws. A song may be played on the radio - either a traditional AM/FM station, or a "shoutcast" or other online station. Many online stores, like Amazon, I believe, offer samples of songs - you can get the gist of a song from a certain portion of it. Certainly enough to tell if you really don't like the music. Another option is to see if one of your friends has the CD and ask to listen to it. If they don't have it, then go look for samples/radio that does.

Additionally, there is an awesome website - pandora.com - that plays related music; ie, if you select a ska band as the center of what they call a "station" then that station will play similar ska music. It is very interesting, apparently open-source, and FREE.

Secondly, the argument that "you never would have bought it anyway" has what appears to be a logical flaw - though we'll have to ask Pindar for confirmation. ~;) I shamelessly quote from the Wikipedia article on warez:

Quote:

---

Logical fallacy of the victimless crime argument – The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument, the truthfulness of the sentence itself presumes a situation where it is taken for granted that the knowledge itself, about the chance of acquiring an illegal copy of the product in question, doesn't in any way change the potential interest of buying it. However, if one already knows beforehand that it is possible to obtain a copy illegally, and decides to do so, there is afterwards no way of really knowing whether or not the person in question would have bought it. This is because the knowledge about the possibility of obtaining an illegal copy for free might turn down the person's interest to buy it, so the potential chance for using warez in the first place might actually effectively sometimes become the reason for not obtaining the legal version.

---

If you didn't have an illegal method for obtaining the content, would you still not buy it? We can't say, because the method exists. That's my understanding of that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

This was to Husar mate.:oops:

---

Well, we've been thinking along the same lines this entire thread, I think I mentioned it too somewhere, but if he pointed out I probably didn't not to make this thread too repetitive.

Quote:

---

Not without paying for it. The right is there, in that you're correct, but it's not freely.

---

Well then, that proves piracy is wrong doesn't it ?

Quote:

---

It does make sense if you consider they're in a balance. Though you answered, and that's an step. So in the actual situation we now know in what direction we should lead the people: to respect private property and reject net-piracy. How do we do that?

---

I suggest reasonable fines for small pirates (private use), big fines, maybe even jail time for big distributors, and taking down the servers whenever possible, like in Sweden. People who actually do the pirating (the hacking) can normally be dealt with within the existing law I think.

Possibly, but it might be a bad start to something, denying access to pirate servers (in countries where we can't stop them) through the ISPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

yesdachi - let's look again at the case of DLing Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea." Firstly, in this modern age of ours there is generally ways you explore the content for free without violating any laws. A song may be played on the radio - either a traditional AM/FM station, or a "shoutcast" or other online station. Many online stores, like Amazon, I believe, offer samples of songs - you can get the gist of a song from a certain portion of it. Certainly enough to tell if you really don't like the music. Another option is to see if one of your friends has the CD and ask to listen to it. If they don't have it, then go look for samples/radio that does.

Additionally, there is an awesome website - pandora.com - that plays related music; ie, if you select a ska band as the center of what they call a "station" then that station will play similar ska music. It is very interesting, apparently open-source, and FREE.

---

Yes, part of the reaosn I'm not interested in file sharing anymore is that the internet has evolved enough to allow me to discover new things just as easily without as much hassle and legally. (I should point out that in my file sharing days, downloading illegal copies was still legal in Belgium afaik)

Quote:

---

Secondly, the argument that "you never would have bought it anyway" has what appears to be a logical flaw - though we'll have to ask Pindar for confirmation. ~;) I shamelessly quote from the Wikipedia article on

If you didn't have an illegal method for obtaining the content, would you still not buy it? We can't say, because the method exists. That's my understanding of that argument.

---

One of the huge problems with the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' argument is that often, pirates show a willingness to spend on gaming, just not on the games. Someone who buys a $3000 rig and then pirates games can't use that argument, he could have gotten a $2000 rig (almost as good anyway) and have bought over 20 games with the rest of the money. He might have had to turn down the resolution here in there in a couple of years, but that hardly makes for a lesser experience imo (but that'sa different debate I guess).
Another example is with movies or music, people often need a bigger HD to store the content, an HD costs about €150 (guessing here, and keeping it cheap), for that price they could have bought 10 albums and rented about 50 movies. You can actually borrow cd's in my local library, they could have borrowed 300 cds for the same amount of money.
A third and final example is their internet connection. We have limits to the amount of data you can download a month of about 10 GB, which isn't really that much, and your average pirate would need more so they pay, let's say 20€ more for a 35GB download limit, that's 240€ a year. they could have bought 6 full price games (let's face, aint that much more decent coming out, and/or most people don't have the time to play much more) 15 or so cd's or rented 80 movies.
There is a definite willingness to pay money amongst most 'heavy' pirates, just not for legal content it seems.

So what you guys, doc bean and Alexander the Pretty Good, are saying is that there are so many other ways to get the same music and movies for free, that there should be no need for file sharing (at lease the music and movies). If that’s the case than what does it matter if people file share the same things they could get for free at a library or on the web? I know the answer, permission, without it, file sharing is illegal. But what I am saying is that casual file sharing something that is available somewhere else for free doesn’t really matter any more than someone going 5mph over the speed limit. Both are against the law but IMO neither matter (I am not advocating anyone do either). Humm, I just said that breaking the law is ok in some cases, I guess I get to pick and choose what laws I obey now.

As to the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' argument, I still stand by what I said in that if it wasn’t free many people wouldn’t have gotten it. In the early days of file sharing I know several people that filled hundreds of GB’s of hard drive space with music that there is no way they would have ever considered actually buying. Many of them didn’t even listen to the music they had, it was more of a challenge thing. I’ll bet that is still the case with many file share’ers now.

Hardcore downloading and redistributing for profit is big time wrong :thumbsdown: but casual file sharing is IMO harmless :hippie: . My mind is not set in stone on this but I haven’t heard any reason to think any different, file sharing has been pretty available for years now and I haven’t seen any people negatively effected (maybe some gamming software companies, but I don’t know if file sharing is the reason for their poor profits) even Metallica is still doing fine. ~D


On a related side note, my family and I listen to music, watch movies (usually kids movies) and play video games (cartoonnetwork.com and some others) all the time on-line all for free, I have developed a comprehensive list of bookmarks :smile:.