As I said (you got in before the edit, I guess):
The developer still deserves to be paid for their work which you have benefitted from, even if you disagree with the restrictions they have placed.
News When piracy makes no sense
- Thread starter ar81
- Start date
As I said (you got in before the edit, I guess):
Kaito
Orbiquiz Coordinator
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 857
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Like everything else, the software companies will adapt to the new environment. So, companies go out of business because people pirated their software. Its GOING to happen. "TV killed the Radio Star". Aye, that it did, but want to know what it brought? TELEVISION STARS.
In my honest opinion, while software piracy is bad, it is just a new "thing" that people will eventually find a way to profit from. Maybe by "pay-per-download" kind of thing, or maybe something completely different that I have no idea about, people will adapt, and someone, somewhere will find a way to make a profit from piracy, just like someone found a way to make a profit from television.
This is just my opinion. I honestly don't know where I stand on piracy. While it's a nice "try before you buy" kind of thing, many people don't do that, and it does hurt industries.
In my honest opinion, while software piracy is bad, it is just a new "thing" that people will eventually find a way to profit from. Maybe by "pay-per-download" kind of thing, or maybe something completely different that I have no idea about, people will adapt, and someone, somewhere will find a way to make a profit from piracy, just like someone found a way to make a profit from television.
This is just my opinion. I honestly don't know where I stand on piracy. While it's a nice "try before you buy" kind of thing, many people don't do that, and it does hurt industries.
Zatnikitelman
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,303
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
[Mods, what is discussed below is as far as I know fully legal, if it is a different, please let me know.]
The free copy vs. paid copy doesn't hold a candle at least to me. I do not, never have and will never illegally acquire a work. If I've found a song I like typically on the radio, I'll then hunt it down on YouTube, then if I really like it, buy it from iTunes. The bands still get their money, and I can listen however long I want. Some artists I've noticed even have their own YouTube channels with their full-length music videos on them. Of note are The Fray, Nickelback etc.
The free copy vs. paid copy doesn't hold a candle at least to me. I do not, never have and will never illegally acquire a work. If I've found a song I like typically on the radio, I'll then hunt it down on YouTube, then if I really like it, buy it from iTunes. The bands still get their money, and I can listen however long I want. Some artists I've noticed even have their own YouTube channels with their full-length music videos on them. Of note are The Fray, Nickelback etc.
Ark
New member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I honestly don't care much one way or the other about it. My beef is with what the RIAA and people like them get away with in the name of fighting piracy, which I know they fully and completely fabricate the consequences of. Even if it's the freakin "Pirate Party", someone needs to stand up and keep them from using a bunch of questionable legal muscle to utterly rape people for downloading a couple of songs because the federal government decided it wasn't worth the time of actual law enforcement.
Jarvitä
New member
Piracy = raiding ships on the high seas. Let's not use emotional media buzzwords, please.
I think the argument of software copyright infringement putting people out of business is has the same flaw as cars putting buggy whip makers out of business. An outdated business model that has no place in the 21st century is being replaced by a modern one, that's all.
As for the argument about not being able to profit with "production" of pure information, I stand by my proposition that intellectual property is imaginary property. There are dozens of ways to attach physical value with a physical price to your information product, without forcing your users to pay for pure information, or sit on it like it belongs to you. A good first step would be for the major software companies to base their product prices on development and distribution costs, not on the licence costs dreamed up by their marketing departments.
Also, if committing software copyright infringement is less of a hassle than buying the product (as is often the case with restrictive DRM), people will do so. The argument that if that's the case, you should buy the DRM'd product and get the (illegal) cracked version separately is not valid, since buying that product encourages the marketers' delusion that DRM is preventing piracy and encouraging more sales. Put simply, products protected with invasive DRM (or the licences that allow you to legally use them) should not be bought or paid for, ever, because this supports further integration of such restrictive measures.
I think the argument of software copyright infringement putting people out of business is has the same flaw as cars putting buggy whip makers out of business. An outdated business model that has no place in the 21st century is being replaced by a modern one, that's all.
As for the argument about not being able to profit with "production" of pure information, I stand by my proposition that intellectual property is imaginary property. There are dozens of ways to attach physical value with a physical price to your information product, without forcing your users to pay for pure information, or sit on it like it belongs to you. A good first step would be for the major software companies to base their product prices on development and distribution costs, not on the licence costs dreamed up by their marketing departments.
Also, if committing software copyright infringement is less of a hassle than buying the product (as is often the case with restrictive DRM), people will do so. The argument that if that's the case, you should buy the DRM'd product and get the (illegal) cracked version separately is not valid, since buying that product encourages the marketers' delusion that DRM is preventing piracy and encouraging more sales. Put simply, products protected with invasive DRM (or the licences that allow you to legally use them) should not be bought or paid for, ever, because this supports further integration of such restrictive measures.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
That is what I mean with services. I don't pay an artist, in my view, for the music. I can play it often myself, that is not the reason for me to get the information from him. I pay him because I like how he plays his music. The service that he does.
Now, the question is: Do I pay a music company for producing a CD? How much money does the music company need to get for a downloadable file, which was just produced once?
And at this point, the real important discussion starts. Is a music industry like it is today still needed for distributing music? Do you pay music for each time your hear it, or for it's pure existence, for a service done once?
The file sharing processes by the music industry or the movie industry actually are only smoke candles for hiding this discussion.
And if you complain about the poor poor artists, which can't afford a new Hummer... in the past, even the greatest of all painters had to do contract portrait paintings for paying customers to earn their money. They did not get paid for their master pieces, for which you now have to pay a lot of money for just taking a look at it.
Artists today have a far better situation than ever in history.
Now, the question is: Do I pay a music company for producing a CD? How much money does the music company need to get for a downloadable file, which was just produced once?
And at this point, the real important discussion starts. Is a music industry like it is today still needed for distributing music? Do you pay music for each time your hear it, or for it's pure existence, for a service done once?
The file sharing processes by the music industry or the movie industry actually are only smoke candles for hiding this discussion.
And if you complain about the poor poor artists, which can't afford a new Hummer... in the past, even the greatest of all painters had to do contract portrait paintings for paying customers to earn their money. They did not get paid for their master pieces, for which you now have to pay a lot of money for just taking a look at it.
Artists today have a far better situation than ever in history.
ar81
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,357
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Costa Rica
- Website
- www.orbithangar.com
During middle age, feudal lords lend earth to peasants. Peasants worked hard and feudal lord collected astonishing taxes from them. So peasant works and produce value added, feudal lords make money and produced no value added.
Value added is different from the usual concept of value people have as perceived value.
Perceived value = Value added + Toxic assets
Banks use money as their inventory, and since money can't produce value added to itself, the only way banks can make money is making debtors to work like workhorses to pay a debt that grows in an accounting book, just like peasants. So banks replace banks. Banking business is about "I give you $10 and you pay me $20". Those extra $10 are produced with debtors work.
If we see US debt, we can be sure that interests that will be paid by taxpayers for foreign debt will be paid to others, instead of being used to develop US. In a similar way, debtors do not enjoy interests money, even if they worked hard to earn it. It is very similar to feudal regime.
Piracy is about making money with other people work, just like banking or like feudal system. The curious thing is that banking is seen as legitimate, while piracy is not.
The funny thing is that people who get debts become slaves of the bank, as the work and live solely to pay abusive interests. And people think they are free.
Such debt also adds inflationary pressure that causes buying power to be reduced. But econmists found a way to export inflation and export crisis to poor countries. However that buying power gap caused by exported inflation is what causes jobs to go overseas to India, for example. So non debtors lose their jobs to subsidize bankers profit.
---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------
Indeed hiring a musician to play live in a party or celebration is more cool than using a CD player to play a CD with the same music.
Musicians and artists are usually slaves of record companies. Artists go on tour, get on the bus, sign autographs, sing, get on the bus again... It is working a lot so a record company makes lots of money.
If I am correct, same happens with developers and publishers. Publishers get the biggest slice of the pie. This is why I like to support indie devs when I can, by buying what they produce, instead of buying products from big companies.
Value added is different from the usual concept of value people have as perceived value.
Perceived value = Value added + Toxic assets
Banks use money as their inventory, and since money can't produce value added to itself, the only way banks can make money is making debtors to work like workhorses to pay a debt that grows in an accounting book, just like peasants. So banks replace banks. Banking business is about "I give you $10 and you pay me $20". Those extra $10 are produced with debtors work.
If we see US debt, we can be sure that interests that will be paid by taxpayers for foreign debt will be paid to others, instead of being used to develop US. In a similar way, debtors do not enjoy interests money, even if they worked hard to earn it. It is very similar to feudal regime.
Piracy is about making money with other people work, just like banking or like feudal system. The curious thing is that banking is seen as legitimate, while piracy is not.
The funny thing is that people who get debts become slaves of the bank, as the work and live solely to pay abusive interests. And people think they are free.
Such debt also adds inflationary pressure that causes buying power to be reduced. But econmists found a way to export inflation and export crisis to poor countries. However that buying power gap caused by exported inflation is what causes jobs to go overseas to India, for example. So non debtors lose their jobs to subsidize bankers profit.
---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------
Indeed hiring a musician to play live in a party or celebration is more cool than using a CD player to play a CD with the same music.
Musicians and artists are usually slaves of record companies. Artists go on tour, get on the bus, sign autographs, sing, get on the bus again... It is working a lot so a record company makes lots of money.
If I am correct, same happens with developers and publishers. Publishers get the biggest slice of the pie. This is why I like to support indie devs when I can, by buying what they produce, instead of buying products from big companies.
Similar threads
