Why we all love piracy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My sentiments are that those who can afford to pay for the music/movies will do so.

Amazing. So, the people who CAN'T afford to pay for luxuries (films, songs, etc) are entitled to take them without paying?

Those of us who cannot afford to pay for it, are not hurting the multi-billion dollar entertainment business one iota.

Well, yes you are. It's only a teensy amount, true, but that's what 'iota' means. But the fact remains, you're taking what doesn't belong to you, without permission, without paying, and without necessity. This is known as 'stealing'.

Besides, when I do have money, at least it is still circulating into the economy toward something, even if it is not toward music/movies.

Immaterial and irrelevant. Spending money in one sector of the economy doesn't absolve you of stealing from another sector. 'I pay for the petrol in my car, so it doesn't matter if I steal plumbing fixtures from the hardware shop.'

Come on.

Boru

[FlyingNarwhal]

It never ceases to astonish me how often people justify theft because it happens to be easy, or 'everybody does it'.

Theft is theft.

Boru

My sentiments are that those who can afford to pay for the music/movies will do so.

Those of us who cannot afford to pay for it, are not hurting the multi-billion dollar entertainment business one iota.

Besides, when I do have money, at least it is still circulating into the economy toward something, even if it is not toward music/movies.

To reiterate Boru's point, does that mean if I need a car but cannot pay for it I should just steal one off of GM's lot because they're doing fine? He's right theft is theft, you can try and justify it any which way you want but you are still stealing. And besides not to sound like a commercial because I'm pretty sure I've talked about this company on the forum before, but I use Rhapsody and I don't know what kind of deal with the devil they made but I pay $10 a month for unlimited music. I technically don't own the music, its not downloaded on my hard drive but with the same money I would only be able to buy 8-10 songs off iTunes so its worth it to me.

Also, do you make sure you discriminate between which record companies you steal from? Because the money that record companies make doesn't go to a big pot of money called "The Entertainment Industry". There are small independent record companies that need the money to continue to support good, non-mainstream music. The way it works (especially with independent labels) is that you pay for the music. A small portion of that goes to the artist. But a good chunk of the left over money goes to making lots of albums (which the artist by them self couldn't afford), promoting the artist's live shows through television, radio, and newspaper ads (which again the artist can't afford), buying radio time for the artist's songs (artist can't afford), renting larger venues (artist can't afford), etc. Basically the record company pays a lot out of its pocket, especially when the band doesn't have a lot of exposure, to give them that exposure to make them possibly successful. Its basically an investment in that artist's sound, that they will in turn make profits for the record company to again pick another unknown artist and try to give them a fan base. That's why bands always wanted to be signed to a label, it means more exposure for them.

[Aractus]

Of course. How utterly stupid of me. I had forgotten that being a have-not entitles one to become an I-will-take.

Look, we aren't talking about food for a starving child, or meds for a desperately ill loved one. Films and music are not necessities, you've got no business contributing to their theft.

Boru

I'm Australian, so let me explain my POV. I'm a big fan of 24, have been since Series 5. I've already seen the first two episodes of the new series in beautiful, glorious HD and loved them! Now, no true fan is going to wait more than 6 days until 12 May to watch the show!! Especially since I can download it in better quality, without commercials or channel logo. Same thing with Doctor Who - no fan of the series is going to wait an extra week to see it in standard definition when they can download it in HD beforehand.

The Australian Networks identified this problem years ago, and they've still done little to address it. Why should I wait for a lower quality product and not be able to partake in internet discussions on the series because I'm a whole week behind??

[Esquilax]

I'm Australian, so let me explain my POV. I'm a big fan of 24, have been since Series 5. I've already seen the first two episodes of the new series in beautiful, glorious HD and loved them! Now, no true fan is going to wait more than 6 days until 12 May to watch the show!! Especially since I can download it in better quality, without commercials or channel logo. Same thing with Doctor Who - no fan of the series is going to wait an extra week to see it in standard definition when they can download it in HD beforehand.

The Australian Networks identified this problem years ago, and they've still done little to address it. Why should I wait for a lower quality product and not be able to partake in internet discussions on the series because I'm a whole week behind??

My thoughts exactly. Generally speaking I try to only pirate things I intend to buy at a later date, but my reasoning is that if networks and distributors are going to make me wait longer, pay more, and potentially get less for my money, then they can also wait for my viewership and cash, too.

The simple solution would be to just embrace the future and offer an up to date streaming service for a reasonable price. This characterization of pirates as willful thieves misses the point, which is that many of us would be quite happy to pay for these things if we weren't being actively prevented from doing so by nonsensical distribution and region issues. Give me the option to click, click, give you my money and watch a show that I would then have legally bought and own that copy of, and I'll happily do so.

[Napoléon]

Which, by extension, gives you the right to steal cars simply because people leave them unlocked with the keys in? Why not nick candy bars? After all, they're 'available for the taking', aren't they?

It never ceases to astonish me how often people justify theft because it happens to be easy, or 'everybody does it'.

Theft is theft.

Boru

This is such a bullshit argument.

The difference between your scenario and piracy, is the fact that only one person truly "own's" the car. You can't make tons of copies of that car which can be distributed freely. If someone steals a car, the true owner is left without. That's a crime that has a real victim. When someone downloads a fucking music track, or a tv series, the person who originally bought it still owns the material. They still have the material. The only people "losing out" are the giant corporations that are already making fucking billions (and I'd make the argument they aren't losing out at all). Game of Thrones is the perfect example of a TV series actually BENEFITING from piracy. I for one would never have watched the series without piracy, but as it happens I watched it, and I've since bought the first two seasons. I'm not alone in this. Thousands of people have done this. There are no 'lost sales' when it comes to piracy. It's impossible to argue the people pirating would otherwise buy the series, or that they wouldn't even after they've pirated. Take a look at the biggest selling games that also feature high on the piracy lists. The Sims 3, Mass Effect, Black ops. None of these games have been 'damaged' by piracy. They're still selling millions of copies. Mass effect and the Sims 3 are two more things I've pirated before actually buying. The games website GOG.com has no digital rights management AT ALL. This is actually a marketing strategy by the company itself to sell games to consumers and ALLOW them to download a purchased game as many times as they want. Has their growth or sales been damaged by this? No. They're one of the fastest growing digital distributors out there, and their sales of the Witcher franchise (whose owner owns GOG.com) hasn't been affected at all when compared with sales on Steam which does have digital rights management.

The whole idea that corporations are damaged by piracy is a complete and utter fucking myth. Piracy really is a crime without a victim. It's a complete fallacy to say that everyone who pirates wouldn't buy the product if they have the choice. The truth is, I would argue, that many people who pirate don't do so with the intention of 'stealing'. It isn't even theft. It's been proven that if you give people the option (Netflix a good example) most people would buy the product. Bottom line is, most of the time the material people want simply isn't available for purchase for whatever reason, it doesn't mean they aren't willing to buy it. It's the corporations own fault for not giving people this option. These massive billion dollar companies are trying to sell this idea that people don't have the right to share. This is bullshit.

All piracy is, is sharing on a global scale. Sharing is not a crime. I don't care what anyone says. People used to make mix tapes from recordings they made from their radios and shared these with their friends. That wasn't considered 'piracy'. People lend each other video games all the time. That's not considered piracy (although there are companies like EA trying to prevent this with DRM). Do you think we should be prevented from sharing? Is sharing a morally reprehensible crime? Fuck off is it. I refuse to accept that piracy is some kind of 'harmful crime'. The only people you could argue it harms are giant corporations who won't even feel the impact of the piracy. Hell there's studies out there that show piracy in many cases actually increases the popularity of their content (Game of Thrones, as mentioned the best example).

The entire conflation of piracy with stealing is downright misleading and WRONG.


I'll leave you with Joss Stone's opinion on the matter:




*edited for grammar. Which is probably still terrible.

[MindForgedManacle]

I don't have a problem piracy. I don't myself pirate, unless you count emulating 20-year old games pirating. The reason I do so is because the relevant companies (say, Nintendo, etc.) have business practices that are stupid and just exploit their consumers, such as rereleasing the same classic games for dowload in each console generation, for the same price, and with no option of having the already purchased games movable to their new hardware. So am I going to buy Super Mario Bros. 3 for, what, the 4th or 5th time so they can milk me for the same content? No, because they've already made their money off of me for the game, and their inability to make things convenient for their consumers by having the content transferable to the consumer's other devices is ridiculous and inhibitive.

And if you're going to make the argument that they're loosing money because I do this, consider this to see how ridiculous you sound:

Can car and oil companies reasonably complain that they're both loosing money to car-pooling and public transportation because if those people had bought their own cars and filled them up with gas they'd have made the money they were owed? No, and that's analogous to pirating as far as I can see. The whole reason people car-pool or take public transportation is because for many it's far more efficient, convenient and saves the consumer money when compared to purchasing their own car and filling it up with gas. Hence why car companies don't tend to remove more seats from their vehicles because they'd probably start loosing money because how many peoplemare going to be buying a car with a single seat?

The whole point of pirating is really the convenience factor. You don't get milked by immoral and usually lazy business practices and the content is more portable. Companies that make their services like such make more money. Those that don't are NOT loosing money they're owed, they're loosing money they were never going to get given what they chose to produce.