I saw this the other day, made me laugh:

 

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

If it's not worth buying is it worth downloading illegally with a fractional chance of being penalised?

 

To be honest though, I'm not overly concerned with the music part. The main point imo is that they are now targeting people who did no wrong, who have been doing what they do for years. Now all of a sudden these people are targeted for no reason whatsoever. It started off as an almost moralistic stance against a few companies with very bad business models. Now however the moralistic part has gone out of the window in favour of vandalism.

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

 

Too bad for them?

Has anyone compared torrenting to borrowing yet?

If you mean borrowing indefinitely, never returning, and sourcing copies so others can borrow it simultaneously, then yeah torrenting is like borrowing.

I loaned a friend my copy of Metroid Prime 3. I can't play it until he returns it. Once I get it back he won't be able to play it.

Pirating is slightly different from that.

Has anyone compared torrenting to borrowing yet?

If you mean borrowing indefinitely, never returning, and sourcing copies so others can borrow it simultaneously, then yeah torrenting is like borrowing.

I loaned a friend my copy of Metroid Prime 3. I can't play it until he returns it. Once I get it back he won't be able to play it.

Pirating is slightly different from that.

IMO why don't you just have him come over or make him invite you to his home so you can both play together then neither one of you is left out?

IMO why don't you just have him come over or make him invite you to his home so you can both play together then neither one of you is left out?

Not the point. :razz:

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

 

Too bad for them?

No, too bad for pirates. /b/ is throwing its immature little temper tantrums (which will have no real effect, and deserve no notice) because it knows it's on the wrong side this time. Governments will eventually be able to enforce their internet laws, and no matter how many online "revolutions" they've started, people who distribute pirated works will be punished for the laws they broke.

 

With time, media sales will be orchestrated more conveniently for the customer, and pirating will be unnecessary. Until then, 4chan can "cry moar" about how unfair the laws are. The fact remains that pirating is both illegal and morally irresponsible, and I will not support any defense of it.

Semi off topic, I actually agree with piracy. Pricing is based on supply and demand, and with digital goods, the supply will, no matter what, ALWAYS BE EQUAL TO THE DEMAND, and the individual copies will cost the distributor nothing. And if there is an infinite supply, how can you decide a price?

 

Basically, publishers/distributors are obsolete. The only problem that leaves is the creators themselves, who deserve to be paid for their work (though maybe they don't deserve to become obscenely rich).

 

Actually, I think Cracked did an article on this a few days ago.

Edit, found it: http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

And what about games, software and movies? They not worth it as well?

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

 

 

you're*

 

Since you make such obvious grammatical mistakes, I'm not sure if your argument holds any water.

 

 

I love dl'ing music. I mean, I don't have the money to pay for it.

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

 

 

you're*

 

Since you make such obvious grammatical mistakes, I'm not sure if your argument holds any water.

 

 

I love dl'ing music. I mean, I don't have the money to pay for it.

 

Then you are breaking the law. You cannot argue that. Would you then justify that by attacking those who try to enforce such laws? That would almost be as bad of a choice as ignoring somebodies argument due to a grammatical error.

The reason people download in the first place (or at least part of it) is because modern music frankly is barely worth paying for :(

That should be the choice of the artist. Artists charge for their work because they put time and effort into it and they're tired of being homeless/need more heroin. The issue is that whether you would be buying the song or not, your are denying money to the people involved in making it.

 

 

you're*

 

Since you make such obvious grammatical mistakes, I'm not sure if your argument holds any water.

 

 

I love dl'ing music. I mean, I don't have the money to pay for it.

But then it would say "you're are". It was obviously a mis-hit key, not a grammatical error. Since you can't make such basic inferences, I don't think I need to even read your last sentence. I read it anyways, and it's not even an argument. I don't know why I bother reading your posts any more - your are dead to me.

There is nothing innately wonderful about "the law".

 

Although the legal and ethical definitions of right are the antithesis of each other, most writers use them as synonyms. They confuse power with goodness, and mistake law for justice. ~Charles T. Sprading, Freedom and its Fundamentals

"Good are laws not laws are good."

A law that makes it so you have to pay for a product, though?

 

You can pretend you're making some moral stand against evil corporations or an oppressive government here, but the reality is that people pirate because they don't want to pay for stuff.

I'm just pointing out that there is a strong distinction between morality and law.

 

Whether or not piracy is morally or legally correct, it is not theft. I am not stating that it is correct, or should be condoned, but it is not theft.

 

Something that comes to mind is a girl who (quite a while ago) copied down one of the Harry Potter books by hand, since she couldn't afford to purchase a copy, and had just borrowed it from a friend. Piracy; she should have been arrested!

 

Yup, found it (not my original source though): http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/girl_copies_har.html

I don't consider it theft. The only reason that comparison gets thrown around, I think, is that nothing else is remotely close to it legally. And I'm pretty sure the only ones that use that comparison seriously are the RIAA. Or at least, people looking for a straw-RIAA to bash.

 

Not that they don't deserve it... :razz:

I have to bring this up again.

 

Prices are based on supply and demand, so how can you charge for something with infinite supply?

I have to bring this up again.

 

Prices are based on supply and demand, so how can you charge for something with infinite supply?

Time and resource cost. An album still has many people working on recording and engineering it, sometimes for months at a time. It still takes electricity to work all of the recording equipment, and whatever electric instruments there are. And not everything is sold by word of mouth.

 

If someone with an economics background could step in here... :lol: I've never taken a class on that, but even I know that there's more to it than supply and demand.

I have to bring this up again.

 

Prices are based on supply and demand, so how can you charge for something with infinite supply?

 

 

Sunk versus marginal costs - see the graph below. In this graph the red line represents consumers - the lower the price of the good becomes, the more people who are willing to buy it, thus the downward sloping line. Producers (IE record labels) are the green line. Producing the movie/game/music costs a set amount of money ("sunk" costs), but beyond that the marginal cost of production is essentially zero (additional CD's are just a few cents apiece). As a result the green line is flat - it costs the game company, say 5 million dollars to produce the game whether they sell 1 or 1,000,000,000 copies.

 

From there it is just a matter of finding the price point and quantity sold. The producers set the prices, so they pick whatever price makes them the most money. To see this, imagine another green line below the first one. That is the total cost of production for the product. From there the manufacturers try to get the most profit possible; or; graphically speaking; whatever price point gives them the largest green-striped square. The intersection between that price and the demanded quantity is at the blue star below. In the past, those who were unwilling to pay studio prices were SOL, but with piracy, anyone who demands the good can get it.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope that helps! If you have any more economics questions feel free to PM me.

I have to bring this up again.

 

Prices are based on supply and demand, so how can you charge for something with infinite supply?

 

 

Sunk versus marginal costs - see the graph below. In this graph the red line represents consumers - the lower the price of the good becomes, the more people who are willing to buy it, thus the downward sloping line. Producers (IE record labels) are the green line. Producing the movie/game/music costs a set amount of money ("sunk" costs), but beyond that the marginal cost of production is essentially zero (additional CD's are just a few cents apiece). As a result the green line is flat - it costs the game company, say 5 million dollars to produce the game whether they sell 1 or 1,000,000,000 copies.

 

From there it is just a matter of finding the price point and quantity sold. The producers set the prices, so they pick whatever price makes them the most money. To see this, imagine another green line below the first one. That is the total cost of production for the product. From there the manufacturers try to get the most profit possible; or; graphically speaking; whatever price point gives them the largest green-striped square. The intersection between that price and the demanded quantity is at the blue star below. In the past, those who were unwilling to pay studio prices were SOL, but with piracy, anyone who demands the good can get it.

 

 

 

IMG

 

 

Hope that helps! If you have any more economics questions feel free to PM me.

 

Haha i just took a test with everything you just said in it.

 

OT: When i first read about this i wasnt surprised. 4chan has been doing this for like ever. It seems like the main stream media is just hearing about it so they're making a big deal out of it.

I think anon was semi in the right when they were ddosing the websites that had admitted to ddosing other websites and the law firm which seems to be accusing anyone they think will pay. The attacking of the government websites seems to be unneccesary though and I can see them potentially running into issues if the annoy the wrong departments. Regardless of your opinion on the morality of piracy, you do need to admit this is kind of amusing though.

 

@Sniper, what level economics is this? I haven't done it and I'm in my last year of high school and I'm taking two economics subjects at university next year, kind of worried now that I read that and have no idea about most of it.

I think anon was semi in the right when they were ddosing the websites that had admitted to ddosing other websites and the law firm which seems to be accusing anyone they think will pay. The attacking of the government websites seems to be unneccesary though and I can see them potentially running into issues if the annoy the wrong departments. Regardless of your opinion on the morality of piracy, you do need to admit this is kind of amusing though.

 

@Sniper, what level economics is this? I haven't done it and I'm in my last year of high school and I'm taking two economics subjects at university next year, kind of worried now that I read that and have no idea about most of it.

 

 

The above is all pretty basic principles-level economics, at what is essentially the 101 level .A good first year course should cover firm pricing behavior.

 

Thought this would be funny :P

Except that you can buy digital music legally? But yeah, it's not too bad.