I never understood the "problem" of piracy. It isn't actual theft. I can't afford to buy this shit...

I never understood the "problem" of piracy. It isn't actual theft. I can't afford to buy this shit. I'd never actually buy it if I had the money.

How is that harming the film industry again?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GIVE ME YOUR MONEY YOU FILTHY GOY PAY ME SO THAT I CAN POISON YOUR MIND

because you didn't pay for the rights to use it

>Synagogue of Satan quints

>It isn't actual theft
It literally is.

It's also not a theft to duplicate money, because you're not stealing value from anyone. In fact, if our government would only just duplicate enough money for everybody to have a million dollars, then we'd all be rich and live like kings and no value would be lost of the money

Okay can you show me what I took from which store and put it in my home?

>unskipable ads on the start of the movie
>region locked
>region delayed release
>scarcity in retail
>absurd prices for quality of the movie

This is why I pirate.

as opposed to methodically is

It actually helps the industry since it exposes people to movies that they wouldn't have seen otherwise and that might pay for after. Especially when it comes to smaller productions with no budget for publicity or a shot at a wide release. But then you need to understand that human nature isn't always about doing what's best for you, it's also about screwing other people over. When given the option most people will choose for everyone in a room to be given $10 each then to ONLY get $15 when everyone else gets $20.

rights are a spook

if you download it without paying for it - but you COULD have paid for it - that's one potential sale they've lost. you are theoretically stealing their right to sell it to you.

personally, i buy it if i dl it and i think it's worth paying for. i once bought a solo album by Brian May, and despite his amazing work with Queen, i felt the album wasn't worth what i'd paid for it. if i'd been able to listen to samples before purchase, i wouldn't have bought it.

so that's the root of the matter. they're worried about losing the opportunity to sell you shit that you wouldn't pay for.

when was the last time you demanded a refund at the cinema and they actually gave you your money back?

>I can't afford to buy this shit.
Get a bigboy job.

They fucked us with the federal reserve. So fuck them.

>In fact, if our government would only just duplicate enough money for everybody to have a million dollars, then we'd all be rich and live like kings and no value would be lost of the money
QE3 idiot.

But I don't want to pay Sky Atlantic ridiculous fees to just watch that one HBO show I want to actually watch in their sea of shit telly.

Don't worry, there's enough people paying for their right to see content, so you can continue being a pyrate if you want.

I try to buy the media I actually like but basically this.

>have to watch unskippable 2 minute message telling me to not pirate movies on my legally aquired copy of the film
>pirate it and just watch the movie

Also not every pirated copy is a lost sale.

It literally, legally, by definition and agreed upon as the laws of this country, is not.

Back in the early 2000s I think, when dvd piracy was a big thing they used to have those really annoying, long unskippable anti-piracy ads at the start of dvds.

What was funny is that if you got a pirated copy the ads were always removed anyway

You wouldn't steal a car would you?

>You wouldn't download a car would you?

y-yes

>implying there isn't some price at which you would buy it, even as low as $0.01
>implying you haven't dodged that price
>implying everyone can't just say "I wouldn't buy it for any money"
>implying those who do pirate but would actually pay don't make up a sizeable enough portion to have their purchases be worth losing all the extra distribution (whatever that's worth) from piraters

>I'd never actually buy it if I had the money
You might if piracy wasn't a thing.

It's not really theft. It's more likely breaking into a store, grabbing a computer, 3-D printing the computer, and then leaving with the printed version. And besides, it has little to no impact on most large companies and artists. Smaller film studios and indie artists do suffer though when their stuff is pirated. Game of thrones is the most pirated TV show in the world yet they still make a shitton of money.

Are you autistic?

Lol but piracy is a thing so go fuck yourself moralcuck. FURTHERMORE I'm not paying to support an industry which is set on pandering to women and blacks, while promoting the downfall of the white males.

>I'm not paying to support an industry which is set on pandering to women and blacks, while promoting the downfall of the white males.
Yet you still enjoy the fruits of said industry.

>I never understood the "problem" of piracy
How stupid are you

Nice strawman you cuckold of the highest order

>indie artists do suffer though when their stuff is pirated.
I don't, unless i paid someone to make what i did, i'm pretty happy with people wanting to see my stuff

If OP literally does not understand what the problem of piracy is then he is stupid
>strawman
My post is an ad hominem at best you retarded faggot

Is taking a picture of a painting stealing the painting?

Physical media is on its way to becoming totally obsolete, it's needless and wasteful to produce in many cases. The laws and views of people just have to catch up to the existence of file sharing, it's simply an efficient, better system of distribution.
Studios still have a lock on revenues from theaters, and nobody can truly replicate that experience at home yet, even for the amount of money that could get you a new car.
Bands have to learn to rely more on live shows, and movie producers have to rely more on ticket sales.

the analogy you are trying to make would more accurately be stealing the hardware on which a song/film were originally recorded.

In the case of art, the property extends to image rights and viewership rights. If taking a picture of a painting were banned and the holder had rights to its image and controlled viewership, then that would indeed be theft of that image.

It's fine to admit you don't give a fuck about your crime because of its marginal impact, but at least be consistent and honest with yourself.

Lets turn this into an actual useful thread.

Where can i pirate more obscure stuff in high quality? I'm in some private trackers but it's a pain maintaining ration when you watch a lot of films, because if you're downloading huge file sizes they take up so much space.

and public trackers are just yify-tier shit or some okay quality stuff but with zero seeders.

It's theft of profit, I believe that creators are entitled to money from their creations, so paying for it seems completely fair.

If you take a picture of every page of a book you take out of a library and put it into a collage but don't distribute it to anyone, did you just steal that book?

>not getting the point

he was showing the flaw in OP's logic

>I'd never actually buy it if I had the money

You would if you had no other option, or you would atleast rent it.

When you pirate something the studio loses one potential sale.
Also theft is not just taking a physical object in your home and I'm sure you know that, you just act stupid for the sake of your argument.
Yes the damage you are doing by pirating a big Hollywood blockbuster is practically non existent, but imagine you're a small indie director who spent 3 years on a project with 5 investors on your head waiting for the money and the film get's leaked online in an atrocius 700mb file so no one really enjoys the film or wants to go pay for it in some local art house cinema.

So the moral of the story is see smaller budget films in cinema even if you have already pirated them if you really like it and if you want them to keep making films like that.

Yes you ignorant fuck, are you just baiting or actually retarded?
Theft is not just taking literal objects to your house, are you by any chance a nigger

Well if an indie artist makes a song, and I assume they had to rent a studio or buy equipment to make it, and then no one buys that song, they will make a net loss. And its especially more impactful if the artist has that as their full time job.

Generally you can photograph artwork like paintings and statues in museums or public places, the photograph isn't an actual copy of the original it's practically a new piece of art in itself. How you think this relates to pirating films is beyond me

thats literally the same thing as watching or recording a Cam rip.

are you pretending to be stupid?

As Gabe of Valve has said in the past, it's a distribution problem. The movies or tv shows are priced beyond what you're willing to pay to see those movies or tv shows on the platforms they're sold on now.

It harms in the industry since they don't get any money to make their movies or tv shows or at least they get less money to do so. A better solution than just "fighting piracy" would just be to find a better way of distributing the shows. Avenues like Netflix, Amazon Prime, or HBO Now seem to be the way to go. Though if something like Amazon Prime tried out only charging $.50 to watch a movie or tv show then they'd probably get massively more wanting to try watching and you'd find smaller shows able to get larger audiences which could in turn help them to get more money brought in to do larger projects down the line.

So yeah basic problem, they need to charge less and/or come up with a better method of distributing their work.

>thats literally the same thing as watching or recording a Cam rip.
Well it literally is not the same in any meaningful sense. Someone paid to enter a cinema to make the recording, and so should you if you wanted to view it. Taking photographs in public places is not the same as recording a film in a cinema.

The legal battle in piracy is about access, not money. Corporations want to assert their ownership over culture, and pirates are violating that. I mean copyright cases are not handled by lawyers who deal with shoplifters, nobody thinks it's the same thing.

This is getting ridiculous.

What if literally everybody did that, if everyone just photographed/photocopied the book and keep it to himself, but no one ever bought it?
Would you say that's a reasonable justified legal act which hurts no one?

If piracy is stealing then that means that going to your friend's house and watching something from his movie collection is also stealing. After all, you got to watch the movie without paying for it and cost the industry a sale.
Try to debate me, you literally can't,

big numbers for you

fuck off reddit

you act like i should care if my piracy affects, or 'hurts' (as you put it) someone. the reason im calling you reddit is because you think that hurting someone is a reason not to do something, as if you won the piracy argument by proving it hurts someone

The point is that you took something you can't afford instead of saving for it because of a grand sense of entitlement and poorly argued excuses for why it isn't immoral.

You are just a cheap shit that wants more than they can have legally. Just accept it.

rutracker

Do you also believe that watching a movie at a friend's house or borrowed from them is stealing? What about when teachers show DVDs to children in schools? Even people living together who share a movie collection? There's a lot of different ways that people watch films without paying for them, is it immoral only if it involves a data transfer over the internet?

I think watching a movie with a friend at your home is fair use of your copy, and no company would stop you from doing that. So you can by a DVD and invite friends / family to enjoy it with you. Arranging a public screening or distributing copies of it would be a different case.

you're supposed to scrimp and save for the things you want in life you stupid fucking goyim that's how it works

if stealing cars was as easy as pirating movies i'd have fleets of cars.

If you were the only consumer of movies. There are many people who wouldn't have bought a ticket otherwise.

Legally it is quite clear privacy is theft. Movies take money to produce, and you're using the service without their permission without paying.

Yes, it's unlicensed usage of material. Whoever wrote the books could sue you

I'LL DO WHAT THE FUCK I WANT WITH MY PROPERTY. IF I TAKE THE TIME TO COPY IT AND HAND IT OUT, THAT'S MY OWN BUSINESS. FUCK YOU MONEY HUNGRY FUCKS.

>I'd never actually buy it if I had the money
would you in a world without the option to have it for free at any time via piracy? if you said yes, then that's the problem with piracy

>66666

ebin

Don't mind me, I am just pirating the wine. I will give it back, after I try it. I am a good human.

I download my films and television shows but I pay for my internet so technically I'm buying the films and television shows. Checkmate atheists.

They don't offer it at those different prices. So by their rigid price structure, they lost a sale. In the changing market, the content producer is responsible for finding a quality of content a pricing model that suits them best. If that means giving up some sales and acknowledging that piracy will occur, then so be it. They could offer it at a lower price or with more convenient service to avoid piracy.

That's how Steam does it for games, they make the service worth paying for the games by giving you access for the foreseeable future on any computer you need to access your games on. The convenience of the access and networking features makes the purchase worth it, and the sales help too.

Meanwhile the movie industry is slapping unskippable ads on paid content, and jerking you around with region-locked DVDs and limiting the number of authorized devices and shit like that.

Don't mind me, just pirating this movie. Don't worry it's just a copy you get to keep the original I'll pay later I promise-

idiot. that physically taking something so there is one less of something to be sold.

Don't mind me, just pirating this vagina. I'll buy it later if I like it enough.

>I'd never actually buy it if I had the money
You only pay for things that have value, and you're basically saying now there's no value to seeing a movie, which begs the question why pirate and watch it for free if there's no value to it

Yes most of us pirate here too user, but we're not delusional brainlets who try to convince themself that it is a morally and legally right thing to do you poor little sack of shit.

Also your argument implies that literally everyone else but you is paying for films, like you are some kind of special pirating snowflake.

>They don't offer it at those different prices. So by their rigid price structure, they lost a sale.
I don't see what pricing scheme could fully satisfy the demand so that every individual could pay exactly the highest acceptable price to them. If you think the price of a movie ticket is too high then don't buy it. The same applies to all other merchandise. The companies just set the price to maximize profits not to ensure everyone gets a ticket. This doesn't by any means justify piracy

the fact he doesn't have to spend money on it is value in itself

eMule is still going strong despite being slow

I'd fucking download wine.

So he gets pleasure from watching a movie that he actually should pay for. I see. So it's the act of piracy he wants not the actual movie

You're not.

Piracy has been a huge gain to the film industry as it gives the unparalleled exposure and advertising

Why do bands give albums away for free? because it gives them an enormous level of publicity and expands their fanbase to something they could never have otherwise imagined. That 's the hard part. From there on it can all be monetised in a variety of ways -- gigs, merch, cons, sequels

Yes, bands and musicians in general have stopped counting on album sales (except the biggest stars obviously) and they get their money mainly from concerts/shows. So it makes sense, make an album, put it out even for free, get exposure, people come and PAY to see your concert. And everyone is happy, great.

But it doesn’t work like that in the film industry.
No one is counting from dvd/bluray sales too, but they are counting on the first release cinema ticket sales, which are the equivalent to a musicians concert. And the difference is here people don't feel the need to even go see it in cinema if they can just pirate it and see it at home with a few clicks, where you can't just pirate every concert that happens in your town. Everything in the film industry comes down to the ticket sales, blurays merch whatever all that doesn’t matter.
So it isn't a good analogy

This has always been a grey area for me. On one hand, there is no way I would watch the movie if I had to pay for it, so it's not a lost sale. On the other hand, creators should be compensated for their work. Maybe if I had more disposable income I'd see it differently. Till I'm a middle class wagecuck I'm not going to pay for things if I can avoid it.

I'm pretty sure you would pay for it one way or another if that was your only option. Streaming or renting whatever.

>b-but I don’t care about mobies!

You are discussing piracy online on a board about Television & Film, I'm pretty sure you would pay for atleast some of your most anticipated films.

Remember, piracy is theft.