If you oppose piracy of music, movies or software...

If you oppose piracy of music, movies or software, you are nothing but a corporate whore that thinks rich people should be handed more money for work they did one time. Copyrights are practically a form of welfare for the rich. Lars Ulrich is a plagiarist and he doesn't need more money. Nintendo is raking in big profits, they are not being hurt by this. Trump is rich, he doesn't lose anything. Piracy is literally not an issue, it's not big enough to cause any noteworthy losses, and 95% of pirates wouldn't have bought it anyway so there is no lost sale.

>but muh little people

They'd get screwed over either way. The RIAA takes massive cuts from album sales. The MPAA would use "Hollywood accounting" to keep the profits. Piracy is just an excuse for them to do so. It's funny how no one watched Fembusters yet it was somehow reported to be "heavily pirated" so they had something to blame. No one pirated that because no one wanted to watch it.

Youtube "gamers" who are opposed to piracy and emulation often stand in front of a wall of old game cartridges that cost them $50K or more, often held on shelves that cost $20, and their homes are packed full of crap. They're upset because I get a better gaming experience for free and am not a junk hoarder. Emulators have features the actual hardware does not and the game library fits onto a single micro SD card. And naturally, every anti-piracy gamer in front of their wall of trash bitches about Zoe and supports Trump. Maybe he can build his wall out of their game cartridges. It'll only end up in a landfill some day otherwise, because these gamers will eventually die alone and no one will want to inherit their old crap.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

How does piracy hurt our feelings? I doubt anyone here works in those industries.

I doubt anyone here has enough money to buy music or movies.

I do, I just don't want to spend money on it. If rich people and faggot Milo hate that, well I hate them.

the last CDs I purchased were used, I ripped them and sold them. They were Denis Leary albums.

>inb4 Byrrr Hyx fans cry a waterfall of bitch tears

Piracy hurts the economy. I hope Trump puts an end to it once and for all.

OP is a fucking moron, probably controlled opposition desu

Give me a moment and I'll tell you guys the actual reason """piracy""" is okay.

Buying used games/music/movies is just as bad as piracy.

Support the original creators. Entertainment is not a right.

ahoy there mateys!
piracy be cool in the eyes of pirate dan

aye pirate dan is mah name
killin' two birds with one stone is my game

life will never be the same
so lets sail away

and always be gay

piracy is fuggin OK

It's an interesting situation, because "intellectual property" and the fact that people actually pay for it, is at complete odds with modern economic theory.

The general understanding of market economics is based on fundamentals like, "Supply and Demand" - and these are easily described using mathematical models: The greater the supply and the lower the demand, the lower the price will be, and vice versa.

If we look at intellectual property and software in particular, we find the following characteristics to be true:
1. It is difficult to create
2. Can be easily copied
2a. For little cost or effort
2b. An infinite number of times

So in a free market you end up with a product that is expensive and time consuming to create, but which once created, can be reproduced as much as anyone happens to care for. If someone wants 5,000 copies of your IP, they CAN and it wouldn't cost them a dime. This means the supply is infinite; in which case the demand doesn't matter and the going price for your product is: Zero! Zero dollars!

The rational economist / businessman see this and knows per their rational / purely selfish point of view, that they can never make money in a market where rational actors will simply "steal" their product by copying, sharing, and distributing it with each other. If you walked into a business class in the 1950's with videogames that can be freely copied past the first sale as your business model, you'd have been flunked out and laughed at.

Their solution? Artificial scarcity! Using the threat of violence against their own customers, these economists and businessmen impose DRM, fines, lawsuits, jail, and even death (should you actually defend yourself from police enacting these legalized threats) in order to limit the supply and force customers to pay for the product.

YET

We see today that games with limited or no DRM restrictions - in fact even games that are literally and intentionally given away for free - still attract profits, and not just small profits, but enough profits to continue running a business. Because the public irrationally supports people creating intellectual property in spite of the fact they can or have, obtained that intellectual property for free.

Ironically I often see in arguments about this (particularly at the hands of business-owned "news"), that it's the pirates, gamers, consumers who are being entitled and demanding. In spite of the fact these are the very people who pay money for things they can have for free to begin with. Meanwhile the publishers go out of their way to actively attack their own customers and spend millions on thwarting the copying and sharing of information. It's like living in a world where the buggy-whip makers have won and outlawed all automobiles. Actually - it's worse than that. It's a case of having automobiles already, and then monied interests outlawed them in order to sell their buggy-whips. It's so farcical I almost can't believe it's the way our modern economies function.

OP watch out, one of these stupid mods is an asshole and he might delete your thread and report you to FBI. Just a heads up.

>paying for things that you find value in is bad
Literally cyberniggers. Sage.

earning profit isn't a right, either.

I've taught at least seven middle-aged people how to stream movies and tv shows for free. One (surprisingly a female) was even open to learning how to torrent.

God you are fucking stupid. Another retarded leaf who doesn't understand how the world works. What is going to motivate artists to create music, movies, video games, if there is no profit?
Imagine the extreme, which you support. If everyone pirates their entertainment, then what driving force will keep entertainment flowing? I sure as hell wouldn't invest millions of dollars producing a movie that will gross $0.00. I'm not renting studio time for an album that will sell 0 copies. I'm not hiring programmers and graphic artists and paying for this game engine license for a game that grosses $0.00.

You should be executed along with the other cybercriminals.

What is going to motivate artists to create music, movies, video games, if there is no profit?
solid bait. I'm especially excited about the future of games going the way of music - easy to create and share from home.

If I cant get paid for the software that I write, what is going to incentivise me to write it?

And you did not answer the question.

I find it incredible that you somehow call me a retard yet completely miss the point of what I said.

Just because (and your statement here is actually untrue) "people won't create without profit" does not mean they THEREFORE have a right to profit. How that is so fucking difficult for you to grasp - I don't know!

I can give you two real life examples of the extremes you've purported that "I support" (A baseless accusation):
Open Source Software, and Modding.

Somehow, people much like yourself believe it to be fundamentally moral and ethical for a corporation to expend every effort to make profit; if they can do something to profit, even if it may be unethical or immoral, a corporation is obligated to do it and we should even support them in those pursuits. Yet turn that around and place the customer in those same shoes, and suddenly you are against it! The sheer hypocrisy amazes me!

>a right to profit
Profit is an inherent truth derived from perceived value and demand. I know you're like 17 and have been brainwashed by leaf education all your life, but this is how the world works, and it is quite normal.
t. business owner

> make a copy of music and distribute it
>oy vey you're a pirate!

> leverage your capital to create money from nothing
>loan newly created money to some WASP
> charge interest on the full loan rather than the capital used to create it
> that's just how banking works goy!

Never feel bad about pirating, adblocking, etc.

Believe in paying fair price for worthwhilr content.

However, as t.oldfag, also remember when CDs were 15 quid (in early 90s money) and industry was repeatedly nicked for price fixing and similar and its not like the consumer was ever compensated.

Sympathy for the inudstry is nonexistent.

All I can speak for is music and anyone who thinks piracy is excusable has literally zero idea about even the basic forms of modern distribution namely Bandcamp. Now more than ever before, any artist who wants you to have their music for free will provide it. Literally end of discussion.

As for any artist who is dead, they have made the appropriate arrangements through a will or even in recent examples like Prince the intentional ommision of a will. Their death is not a negation of the simple fact that if they want you to have their music for free then they will provide it.

I don't know how it works in your native homeland, Chang. In the west, we respect laws and support enterprise and innovation.

A strong country is nothing without a strong economy.

buying used games is legal, Chaim

Why don't the companies sell the emulators and the old games?
Because they like to bitch and moan about a guy who did it for free.
Why don' the companies sell a decent bluray encode instead of that webdl shit stream?!
Because they like to bitch and moan about a guy who did it for free.

Software people could give a fuck less if you use their programs for free (as long as you aren't making money off someone else's work). I think the process of learning about computer science or programming or IT makes you really appreciate freedom of information, and I'd say deep down all computer people believe in info freedom.

Now the ((((boss)))) upstairs, that's a different story.

It depends on what you're pirating. I can understand pirating games from the '80s/'90s that are ridiculously expensive due to induced scarcity. The creators won't see any money from you buying a used copy anyway.

But if you're pirating indie games available on services like Steam, you're scum. If you don't want to give Steam money, fine - pirate the game and use PayPal to send money to the creators. Otherwise, you're scum.

>squeezing water from a rock
If you managed to stop it (don't begin to ask me how you would) that doesn't mean people will pay for it. They will search for an alternative that is free or simply not consume. Basic fucking economics

He could easily stop it if he passed some laws that make it easier to prosecute vermin like you.

America would be pirate free in a month if they had some real fear of jail time.

Also, pirating from companies like EA can still result in the people that actually made the game you pirated getting laid off, because they didn't hit sales targets.

If you really want a company like EA to change, the correct response is to boycott the company's games while sending e-mails/making phone calls to the company saying that you'll purchase the games only when the company improves its revenue sharing model.

But nobody will do that. They just want justifications to steal.

This is why I hate used game sellers too. They cut into the sales of devs and publishers.

Good on you for typing this out, I thought you explained it well

>All this petty discussion about the morality of the situation

I will pirate shit because I can, what are you gonna do about it? :^) Just as companies jew us at the full extent of law without moral remorses. Only a cuck would pay for shit you can get free.

Unfortunately you are too dumb to recognize the infeasibility of your solution, probably due to a complete incompetency in anything tech related

for whatever copies you do sell though, that's when you are compensated . if not its copyright infringement

buying used is ok though

ah, the "complaint-box" jew trick. People are smart enough to know it is merely a facade, and the top corporate dicks don't care. Easier solution is the personal one, rather than attempting to rally all consumers for some vague cause.

Piracy =/= free

Free is the price charged by the seller. Bandcamp offers albums for free because that is the price charged by the owner and seller.

Just because you didn't pay for something doesn't mean it was free.

HERE IS THE "MUSIC IS DYING MEME WORKS":


Big labels (there are 3 now, we had more at the past, they merged with one of those 3), 75% (or something around that) of all music that is sold is from one of those labels.
YES there are more than 50000 labels out there, but just 3 labels out of 50000+ make 75% of the sell.

Lets imagine 75% is the right number.

Now, the math:
Imagine music industry sell 100 albums per hour, this means the biggest 3 labels are selling TOGETHER at an average, 75 albums per hour (25 each label).

ALL the other labels out there sell collectivelly an average of 25 albums per hour.

Imagine the big labels started to sell 3 times less albums per hour, this means they will be selling just 25 albums per hour at an average.

This means the amount of albums being sold now is just 50 per hour.

The other labels are selling more albums at an average. lets say 1.2 times more albums (30 per hour), they increased the amount sold, but thats is not enought.
ALL THE LABELS THAT ARENT THE 3 BIG ONES would need to sell at an average 3 times their previous amount (25*3=75) to make the amount of albums sold per hour go back to 100 albums per month.

So, the big labels sales drop skew the data.

I got it free, so its free.

Keep giving away your shekels, goy.

It's just funny to me that you can't even call it what it is. If you steal an apple was that free? If you steal the answers off of someones test sitting next to you were those answers free?

The leaf up there basically covered it

When you buy a book, you aren't paying for the (((intellectual property))). You pay for the raw materials. Trashy supermarket pornos for lonely housewives generally cost the same as milton or yeats assuming the circumstances of their production were similar. Sometimes there's a markup due to name recognition when they can get away with it, but its minimal.

The cost of data in a digital environment is storage (or bandwidth). Digital media was reasonable priced when the bytes per dollar you were able to purchase was astronomically lower. Prices have not matched the rapid growth of storage capability of modern machines, and thus you get piracy, because people have no innate moral objections to it. They're just applying common behaviors (sometimes subconsciously) they do in the most similar situations.


And you are not ever expected to pay for the experience of representative media, otherwise libraries would have destroyed civilization long ago.

And who the fuck do you think pays for every speck of dust in a library? Santa Claus?

The company would care if you backed up the complaint box missives with actual action. But companies know lazy Americans and Canadians will cave in to their base desires.

>I obey what companies arbitrarily define as stealing while they sell digital shit that could be replicated for free
>Implying I care to not steal them anyway

I have no regards in stealing companies that would screw me in any opportunity they can.

Let me drop a redpill for you:

Everyone does whats in their best interest and then rationalize the morality in their favor.

Why do people do anything without pay? Figure that one out and you'll have your answer.

Why do you browse Sup Forums without pay?

Well at least you're calling it stealing now.

>When you buy a book, you aren't paying for the (((intellectual property))).

Categorically untrue. College textbooks are a perfect example of how you're wrong (yes, such textbooks are overpriced, but also prove my point). You're paying for the intellectual property plus manufacturing costs.

The idea was that with ebooks you'd get a slight discount because manufacturing costs were removed. And while this hasn't always proven true, from my experience many ebooks are cheaper than the print editions.

No, it's human nature, and scarcity of resources (time, money, energy, skills to manage such a movement) are lacking in strength and coordination, as everything is initially. Needless to say, it is simply unrealistic, and more or less a complete waste of time to organize and carry out your proposed solution. It will never happen. You don't have to deny reality in practice. It simply means you need to approach the problem in another way

it's fucking stealing. there's really no argument against it. stop being such a faggot and admit you're a thief and that you don't care

>I've taught at least seven middle-aged people how to stream movies and tv shows for free
Nice one. You are doing gods work

What exactly is your point? Libraries have a operational cost, but dispense a service which is assigned no monetary value.

I'd much rather my tax dollars go towards an open digital repository of learning than the local niggers.

You're wrong. For one, to boycott software and digital downloads that are designed for entertainment purposes is a trivial act. It's hardly a sacrifice. All it takes is a simple web page (such as Facebook page) to organize the movement and some willpower. You'd actually save money during the boycott.

The real problem is that our values are twisted. When you live in an extractive economy based around adding superfluous costs to create profits throughout the supply chain, well... people start to look at ripping somebody off as a virtue. In such a world, piracy will continue to flourish.

But it doesn't have to be that way. We could relearn honor.

Libraries are not free, they're collectives. Paid for almost exclusively with property taxes.

Textbooks are quite different, because they don't operate on the market, except for people trying to recoup their losses selling used. Entire system is just an insular money milking scheme.

No, I'm not wrong. While I could do it, most don't share our feelings, nor our vision of the goal. If it were possible, it would happen. It's like saying "ya its technically possible for a 3 legged creature to exist", but no its not, because if it were possible, you'd see it.

Obviously, there are external factors we are not considering that make a big difference. Refusing to acknowledge whatever may be holding us back will not help. You need to see things through the eye of practically, not ideology

I usually pay for content that I like and pirate other.

But still I believe that any information should be accessible for free, because there are people that can't afford it.
Information is a right, not a welfare.

So you stealing test answers off the person sitting next to you is a right?

Well yeah, the practicality is that people can just get stuff for free instead of denying themselves entertainment to make a point. Probably there are only two actual ways to fix the problem:

1. Prosecute the hell out of piracy.
2. Get people to tie their beliefs to their spending habits, which is one of the most powerful forms of "voting" in a capitalist system.

You're right that #2 is almost impossible to see happening. But I still would like to advocate for it. Maybe we could win some small victories.

Well, you can boycott and download the game.

eat the cookie and still own it.

>test answers
>somehow relevant

Every book about something is a collection of test answers.

Consumers will never know why creators create.

Yes? I never stated otherwise. It's about the distorted cost to value of digital distribution.

Consider the minimal percent of your taxes which goes towards a library. For that, you receive unfettered access to more "intellectual property" you could consume in a lifetime. It's nearly worthless in monetary terms to us as a culture, which is why people have no qualms pirating it.

Agreed

>Torrenting almost 1000$ worth of music production software

Yeah it is. It's information at a time and place that benefits you. If you pirate a Beyonce album from someone's entire collection right now you may not care and consequently delwtw it. However in the future you may actually want Lemonade which will be at a time and place that benefits you as opposed to right now hypothetically.

But then companies don't get it. They view the problem as people stealing rather than making a point. And for 90% of the people, stealing is what it's all about.

Yeah you did, read your post. However if you realize that users do in fact pay for libraries then that's the point. The system may work well enough for some users that it seems free but it's still a collective by definition.

Kek. I hope you get caught

>talks about a bad musican
>makes a leap to lemonade
>thinks they are equivalent

Make a better argument, there is a huge difference between stealing a idea/concept/song and stealing a real object.

Wtf you're the one making leaps here unless you don't understand that Lemonade is a Beyonce album. The Grammys are tonight actually so I assumed that was a given.

youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

Been a while since I listened to this song.

well

you should post this on /vr/

More like, companies increase the price artifically and the customer doesnt wanna pay the price.

You can easily reproduce digital content without any cost. If your product is shit, nobody wants to pay for it. Produce better songs/game/ideas and people will pay you some bucks.

I think 1 unit of effort on the right approach is worth 1000 of the wrong approach.

It not that producers have a right to profit. Its that profit is what motivates them to produce.

I for one enjoy high quality Games and movies.

I dont listen to bad musicans

I try before I buy, if I like it I'll pay up.
The amount of garbage they throw out there means that doesn't happen very often desu.
I've paid to much for utter shit before the internet came along that they no longer get the benefit of the doubt, I assume it's over priced shit and pirate to find out if I'm right.

If a friend has a hardcopy of the book and allows me to borrow it, does me downloading digital book for ease of use constitute piracy?

If my family wants to go to the movies but my busy schedule doesn't allow me time to join them, then does me downloading a shitty pirate film and viewing it for the reason as to monitor my childs moviw going put me at odds with hollywood?
I'm still dropping a 100$ for my family to go see that movie if I think it's an appropriate film.

You see, it isn't anyones fault that content creators have a hard time "keeping up" with technology. It's their own failure.

>I for one enjoy high quality Games and movies.

Almost 90% of all movies and games are bad or cheap copies of other movies or games.
Companies dont like to take a risk, reproducing the same boring ideas every year.

I dont understand what your point is.
Your comparing apples and oranges and i think your implying that loans are inherently wrong or flawd or immoral but i dont see how.

found the jew

Most intellectual property arguments, for and against, focus on the remuneration side: how much the creators, or publishers, get or don't get as a result of piracy. But that's not really the important part. More important is what the pirate gains illegitimately. If you don't acquire the thing legitimately, you don't have a right to it. For example, it's wrong for you to sneak into a movie you didn't buy a ticket to, even though the theater is already screening the movie, and their cost is the same whether you sneak in or not. Asking what the theater gains or loses is the wrong question. You don't have a right to see the movie. When you make digital copies of a movie, or music, or a game, you don't deprive anyone of the ability to access the content, and it might be true that you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the creators aren't losing out on any potential revenue. But you have no right to the thing you copied. You don't deserve it. If you copied all your exam answers from friend who spent hundreds of hours studying, you would both get As, but only one of you would deserve the grade because only one of you earned it. You can't take pride in the A because it's not really yours even though you figured out how to get it.

Oh really? Whats your aotysf? What was your aoty 2016? 2015? How far will we need to go back?

I agree. I studied entertainment industry law and I still can't defend modern copyright laws. Fuck pirate shit and force these degenerate musicians to make money from touring and selling merchandise like they should be anyways.

Artists are liberals.
Liberals want socialism or communism.
Socialism or communism is shared wealth, means of production, etc.
Piracy of music is taking the product liberals made and giving it to the people, literally socialism/communism.

Therefore, it is ok to do by their standards.

Well, I just hate the industry and want to see it crash and burn.

Something will rise out of the ashes, and it will be better.

Also, many people i have spoken to, who are against piracy. Are just total pussies & cucks, afraid of breaking the law, and jealous as shit that I don't have to pay for it.

As usual, socialism is not as fun when it's your shit being redistributed.

Ok business owner. If you provide a product or service i can make or do myself, I'm never going to pay you for yours. That's my right. You don't have a right to a profit. That's how business works. You don't make profit you fail. If your services or product becomes obsolete, you're business is gone. You can't complain you deserve to still make money, and cry it's your "right".

>You don't have a right to see the movie

Who makes the decision that I dont have the right to see the movie?

>You don't deserve it.

Where is the connection between "the right to see it" and "deserve it"?

>If you copied all your exam answers from friend who spent hundreds of hours studying,

Maybe morally wrong, but not against the law.

> You can't take pride in the A because it's not really yours even though you figured out how to get it.

Irrelevant. Nobody in the real world will care about the way, they only care about the outcome.
Here is a example:
1. Steve Jobs stole the MAC OS idea from a company.
2. Bill Gates stole his OS idea from apple.
3. Nobody in the real world cares, they are multi-billion dollar companies.

Oh so sneaking into shows isn't ok? Im just up against the wall mot taking any space that anybody wants. How about an outdoor show with a curtain over a fence? I didn't destroy their curtain by removing it. I just rearranged it. Now we're all watching the show for "free"

>?
weed bro

Yeah and piracy isn't literally against the law either. It's a civil offense subject to lawsuit. Analogous to being punished for cheating.

Wait, you trying to say that there are people that ACTUALLY PAY for series, movies and music?

What next, you gonna tell me that there are people who pay for anime and porn?

No I'm combining rum and sleeping pills

I pay about a dollar a day for music. I dont know I haven't added it up.

Why?

>Entertainment is not a right.
fuck off lad
entertainment is a right
go live in north korea if you think it's not then, and have fun there faggot

do you honestly think fucking people who earn buggerall would make a change if they can't pay for shit? artists should be glad they're getting free advertisement

Because I respect people's rights. According to my expectations. And that's literally what life is all about, expectations. The artist expects me to pay for it and I expect to abide the agreement. Conversely for example I accidentally didn't toggle my bank account selection so I accidentally bounced an e-check from an old bank I don't use. I am not going to voluntarily pay then $20 for that. Mostly because it was not my expectation.

>I pay about a dollar a day for music.
Yeah I wish 3rd world countries / unfortunate people can also pay a fucken dollar a day for music