News Suprnova.org Explodes

However, do you steal the car, and then, if you like it, go back and pay for it? That would be that same thing, but I don't think that these things are comparable.

 

Now you're getting into a whole other debate. We're talking intellectual property here, which by its very nature is intangible, that is to say that taking possession of it does not deprive the original owner of enjoyment of the thing. i.e. if you copy a CD belonging to a friend, neither the friend nor the artist loses any use of the product. What you are in fact taking is a right belonging to the creator of the music.

What I'm saying is that your analogy doesn't stand up - if you steal a car, you deprive the dealer / owner / manufacturer of that actual car. Stealing music isn't comparable because the owner needn't even know you've stolen it.

Personally I think that if you dl a track or album, evaluate it and either to buy it or delete it, you're morally on good ground. After all, that's what radio play, MTV, Napster's legal membership service etc. all allow you to do - try before you buy. Using p2p like this actually increases the chance of you buying a CD. The only people who might complain are the big mainstream artists who lose ground to the little independent artists, and if you assume there is only a finite amount of money to be spent on CDs you might argue that this eats into their revenues. However, if you then use that download indefinitely without buying it, you are then depriving the artist of revenue, you are taking without paying, which is wrong.

However, the legality / morality divide steps in here as well - what I have just described, using unlicensed p2p to 'evaluate' music, is illegal. Also, most of the modern p2p systems require you to share some stuff of your own, and unless that is all freeware or your own original content, then you're breaking the law here as well.

With movies the situation is different again - I rarely watch a movie more than once or twice, so for me to dl and 'evaluate' a film would be unfair as almost always I would then happily delete and not buy it, having already had all the enjoyment of the first viewing.

 

The car analogy wasn't mine.

As for the big hitters in the industry losing money, I agree. They are used to having so much power that they can afford to advertise more, thus making more sales. Now, the indie music makers can spread their music on P2P, then make a profit when they release an album.

 

No, I don't steal it, I get the specifications, try to read/watch tests, go to the shop, ask to see all the car and if possible ask for a test drive.
If I like it, I buy it, if I don't like it I don't buy it, and I do the same with music.

The main problem in this country is that we have to import most things, and now imports are charged 80% over the cost of the product and s/h.

As for movies, I do the same as mclean007, I watch it once and that's all.
If I really really really like the movie, I can watch it as many times as I want, and that's where I would also get the DVD.
Just as another example, last time I went to USA I wanted to buy Excalubur, but I was out of money.

 

There will always be alternatives.
I download TV shows that have aired in america but wont be aired in UK for another 6 months. Its stupid nowadays that there is still a HUGE delay in airtimes between TV shows in america and europe. Thankfully the rippers get rid of the adds too.
Also there are TV shows that are aired only in america but not in UK, so do they have any legal right to stop us watching them here if they dont release the show here?

I know I use to download a japanese cartoon called Initial D from suprnova which is an UNlicenced TV program and perfectly legal to download.

But they have really done it now by closing down some good sites, Ill just be playing video games from now on and wont go to the cinema or buy songs, there are PLENTY of digital radio stations and internet streaming stations about that are far better, IE www.di.fm

Its a shame we cant get everyone to boycott movies and music buying

 

first, I don't think a B-T mod should be starting a flame towards me
1) I meant BS lawsuits in general, not specifically these
2) I've bought plenty of music and movies and before people had heard of bit-torrent and before piracy became more of a mainstream thing there was DRM. There's a simple and unfortunate fact that due to our natrue of capitalism, those who can gouge prices do and those that try to take a stand against said gouged prices get screwed over.

I'm not saying piracy is right by any means, I'm saying that the organizatons have no right to sue people for enough to cause bankruptcy to compensate for something that cost $10-15 and they wouldn't have even seen half of that. Personally if the money went to the artists primarily or the software wasn't bugged to all hell, I'd have no problem with most of the pricing today. But the fact is that a lot of the money goes to the RIAA/MPAA or the software is buggy, and the piracy that occurs as a result still doesn't even come vaguely close to causing them to LOSE money (there's a difference between losing money and not getting more of it by the way). Not to mention most things that are pirated include some sorta text file that says if you like it then buy it and support those that made it.

I'm going to stop here before you get more pissed at me, but that's my stand on it. Lowering the prices will reduce piracy and most likely increase profits.

 

re: burglary vs theft
I had a feeling it was womething to do with time of day?

 

well it was all so sudden
*waits for exeem to come mainstream*


for anybody that cares tvtorrents is a .tv now.

 

if they definatley stop all this p2p and torrents.. internet companies are going to loose so much money with the amount of people that will go down to slow interenet (128K)

I myself am on 1mb... and will get lower speed if Torrents / p2p has stopped. no point of having 1mb to look at emails

 

What's with the belief that an intangible thing is worth less than a tangible thing? Great, sell me your immortal soul for $5! Go down to the shady part of town and see how far you get trying to get an orgasm for $2! OK, maybe it'll be easier if you imagine things like music and movies to be services rather than goods?

How impressed would you be if you needed some spare cash and your neighbour asked you to build a fence for you? S/he gives you money for wood, nails and paint, and you get to it. You spend a couple of weeks total in planning, going to the store, and working hard to build the fence. At the end, when you ask to be paid, s/he just laughs and points to the constructed fence, saying, "But I already paid for it!"

Pretty much the same deal here. When you pay $15+ for a CD, do you really believe that you're paying for the plastic disc and liner notes? If so, go and buy a handfull of rubbish music from a cutout bin, congratulate yourself on finding a great bargain, and make life better for everyone else.

I found the whole thing about stealing a car pretty amusing. The car dealer doesn't want the car so he can drive it around, you fools! In and of itself, he couldn't give a crap if the car is on his lot or not. He wants the proceeds from the sale of the car! And in that respect, it is exactly the same as stealing music and movies.

Nezuji

 

ahh so that would be why I have 9 movies that stoped downloading

 

Well as no one else is going to admit to it i will.... I download films watch them AND keep them. if its a film i really want to see or like then i buy the DVD, i DONT download it. Why do i dowload films and not buy them? Cost pure and simple.

I see no reason why the film companies can possibly charge £20 for a DVD and say they hardly make a profit on them. They says its because of piracy and illegal downloads. IMO thats BS as a DVD costs the same now as they did before DVD burners were cheap enough to be available to the majority of people. Simple fact is if they made DVD cheaper more people would buy them and wouldnt download.

Film companies make a lot of money from people replacing old VHS tapes of their favourite movies with DVD. Thats why theres such a big push to change to BlueRay or HD-DVD, as people will again update thier back catalougue to the latest format. New money for old rope.

Everyone on here who tries to justify downloading films and Tv shows as legit because they are 'not available here yet' or 'buy them if they like them' are deluding themselves. What your doing is illegal. I know what i'm doing is illegal and if they catch me i'm prepared to face the consequences.

 

Okay Skippy, first of all lose the attitude. There's no need to wade into a reasoned and polite debate by calling people fools and trying to impose your own (limited) view of things. Despite your tactlessness and the superficiality of your understanding of the issues here, you clearly have at least a modicum of intelligence, so please use it next time before you open your mouth and jump in with both feet.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the retail price of a CD is based on the actual cost of a plastic disc, a jewel case and a few paper inserts.

Music and movies are not 'services', at least in the sense that you're comparing the service of building a fence. That is still a tangible service, insofar as you can point to that specific fence and say 'I built that'. However, CDs are intangible in that an artist cannot pick up a pirate copy of their CD and say that they actually made that specific CD. If your neighbour refuses to pay you for the work in the fence then you lose out very directly.

In contrast, there is an argument that by copying a CD you do not directly affect the artist in any way. You can steal intellectual property without depriving anyone else of their ability to use it, whereas if you steal a car from a forecourt you deprive the dealer of the ability to sell it to someone else. Making an illegal copy of a CD doesn't affect the original copy at all, and if you would never have bought that CD then you might argue that you haven't deprived the artist, recording studio etc. of any revenue, and so feel you aren't in the wrong. That is the difference between intellectual, or intangible, property, and real, or tangible property.

No-one has said that intangible things are worth less than tangible things, as you suggest has been said - I am merely trying to point out the unarguable fact that the nature of the theft is different. The argument that the theft doesn't deprive anyone of their rights cannot hold up in relation to tangibles.

 

thanks for that, top site tvtorrents, was defo going to miss it

 

Quite right (except for the superficiality bit, I hope ). I apologize wholeheartedly for my outburst. It was uncalled for and my over-zealousness had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but with a personal issue. I had intended it to be voiced with a jokingly exasperated/lightly sarcastic tone, but I realise now that even if it were possible to clearly convey that through text, it would still have been insulting.

In fact, more than one poster on these boards had intimated exactly that. I realise that they probably don't actually believe it, but they do say it.

It's true that music and movies aren't actually services in the traditional sense, but I was suggesting that thinking about it in that way might help people to understand what they were doing when they pirate. As for the opinion that, "an artist cannot pick up a pirate copy of their CD and say that they actually made that specific CD," I would have to disagree with you in principle there. True, the record company may not have produced that physical pirated CD, but as you yourself just said above, no-one's really paying for the plastic disc, etc. If the artists and sound engineers didn't produce the content of that CD, who or what did?

I would disagree strongly with the view that there is an argument that by copying a CD you do not directly affect the artist in any way. I understand that you're merely highlighting the thought processes involved in morally justifying IP theft, but I can't shake the belief that it's flawed. I'm very glad that you worded your rebuke to my rant about the car example the way you did: ... if you steal a car from a forecourt you deprive the dealer of the ability to sell it to someone else. I would say that if you steal music by copying a CD, you deprive the artists and everyone else involved from the producers all the way down to the freight companies and the retail outlets of the ability to sell you a copy. That was my (over-the-top) point about the car; The car itself is immaterial.

Music and movies are things that people want (obviously, otherwise people wouldn't be pirating them), and they take time, thought and effort for a group of people to create. While they almost certainly get some pleasure from producing a good and popular piece of work, a large part of why they do it is for the money! And if you were never going to buy it, what moral argument is there for the act of piracy? I would submit that anyone who says that they weren't going to buy it anyway is really saying that they intended to steal it from the get-go.

I believe that you yourself said it when you wrote, "Making an illegal copy of a CD doesn't affect the original copy at all, and ... you might argue that you haven't deprived the artist, recording studio etc. of any revenue..."

Look, if you're trying to make the point that stealing a physical object isn't exactly the same as stealing intellectual property, well I suppose that there's no rational argument to make against that -- it's pretty clearly true. My point is when you're discussing this in a commercial situation, where the aim is to trade items for currency and thus create revenue, that difference is irrelevant. You're still stealing the results someone's work without paying for it.

Nezuji

 

RIP, I just got the news today :'(

 

A golden age in piracy has ended.

 

I'm not pissed...

 

No worries mate. I think we've all done the same at some point!

In relation to everything else you've said, can we lay it to rest because we're clearly talking at crossed purposes here. I'm obviously still not making my point about the distinction between tangibles and intangibles clearly enough - to put a definition on it, a tangible item is one whose value is described by its physical embodiment. An intangible item is one where the physical representation is of negligible value compared to the information it represents. Usually intangibles can be easily duplicated for far less than their perceived value, especially in the current age where the majority of intellectual property (music, movies, books) can be broken down to a digital bitstream which can then be quickly and cheaply transported anywhere in the world.

The distinction I was trying to make in reference to the car was this - stealing a car deprives the dealer of the ability to sell it to ANYONE, whereas stealing an album or movie by making a pirate copy only deprives the record / movie company of the ability to sell it to YOU. You might argue that if you genuinely would never have bought it (because you don't think it justifies the asking price) then by copying it no-one loses out. However, at this point it becomes pretty much academic because one can never say that in a world free from piracy one would or would not have bought such and such a piece of intellectual property, for a number of reasons - firstly, people tend to delude themselves about this in an attempt to internally justify an illegal and immoral act. They either actually believe or they pretend that they believe they would never buy anything they have a dodgy copy of, so no-one is harmed by it. Second, the perceived value of a thing is eroded by the widespread availability of that thing at a lower price (in this case free), so an item which might otherwise have justified the asking price in the mind of the consumer ceases to do so when it appears on the net for free download. Thirdly, the value is further eroded by actual possession of one of these widely available copies - familiarity breeds contempt, so free possession breeds undervaluation. Nevertheless, my original point stands, and it is central to the concept of intellectual property - you can enjoy your copy, legal or otherwise, without affecting anyone else's rights over their copies, whereas an illegally obtained car necessarily damages the rightful owners rights over it.

You are missing my point here - you suggest that my words here can be taken to mean that intangibles are inherently less valuable than tangibles. That is not my point at all. It merely refers to my point above, which I'll reiterate here for clarity - you can create a perfect replica of the only valuable part of a CD belonging to your friend - its content - with ease, and then use that copy exactly as you would use the original, and without affecting your friend's ability to use the CD exactly as he wants. You haven't physically taken anything belonging to the recording studio or artist, and they don't even have any knowledge that your copy exists. From one limited point of view, therefore, you might contend that there is no immorality in the act of making and using the copy. My point was no more and no less than that, and of course I understand the counter-arguments you put forward. I even agree with them, I was merely explaining the situation and putting forth the rationale for a widely held, if flawed, perspective.

 

I dont know if this has been posted yet or not (dont feel like reading through the entire posts) but suprnova may be dead but its tracker isnt. If i am allowed to post the link to one of the mirrors i will. Just tell me.