This gubberment is going after the pirates.

AhSureTisGrand

I will be downloading the entire known universe over Christmas in anticipation of this legislation

MagicSean

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ya know, I kind of can dig what Seachmall was saying about Copyright Infringement. But what you are saying is a totally different thing. And ... I dont know what planet you're living on :pac:

Millions and millions of people download around the world. We can agree on that. But are you honestly going to say that any good sized percentage of them download only to decide to buy or not? :P

Dude, people download because its free. Because they are getting something without paying for it. Not to try it like a demo. Yeah sure, that 1 person out of a 1000 might do that. But whats he to the other 999? lol.



You said it best.
Personally I think all that "oh i only download to see if i wanna buy it" is one of the most bull****test lies I have ever heard in my life :pac:
Take a person who bought 10 albums last year after downloading. You'd still find the other 40 albums he downloaded without buying on his ipod

That's not what I'm saying. The justification of only downloading something to try it only works for games.

I'm saying that people only download it out of convenience. If it weren't easy and free to get they wouldn't be that interested in it.

Copyright holders do not care about artistic merit or 'rights', they only care about money and will use their lying, scumbag puppets in government to f**k you over again and again. Pirate all of their material and give it away to others for free. There is no effective way of just censoring a few websites.

thefly

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying. The justification of only downloading something to try it only works for games.

I'm saying that people only download it out of convenience. If it weren't easy and free to get they wouldn't be that interested in it.

So by that token, people would stop listening to new music?

It's an absurred argument!! People will always listen to New Music. If they have no alternative but pay for it, they will

thefly

Deleted User wrote: »

Copyright holders do not care about artistic merit or 'rights', they only care about money and will use their lying, scumbag puppets in government to f**k you over again and again. Pirate all of their material and give it away to others for free. There is no effective way of just censoring a few websites.

As a photographer who has had my images used without permission I resent that statement. I care about my art a huge amount but it's also how I make my living.

And what's wrong with caring about money. If that's how you make your living then you should care about money.

MagicSean

thefly wrote: »

So by that token, people would stop listening to new music?

It's an absurred argument!! People will always listen to New Music. If they have no alternative but pay for it, they will

Not the stuff that's pirated. Someone already posted studies about it. People who pirate spend more on purchasing then anyone else. It stands to reason that they purchase the stuff they really like and pirate the stuff they wouldn't be interested in buying.

strobe

thefly wrote: »

So by that token, people would stop listening to new music?

It's an absurred argument!! People will always listen to New Music. If they have no alternative but pay for it, they will

One alternative is those newfangled wireless high fidelity frequency modulation receiver contraptions. All the rage amongst the whipper snappers, I hear.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

One alternative is those newfangled wireless high fidelity frequency modulation receiver contraptions. All the rage amongst the whipper snappers, I hear.

Just wait til there's a way to record the incoming signal, it'll be the end of the music industry!

Tea_Bag

I once discovered a band on YouTube. they were very small at the time, and had no actual music videos, just fan made material uploaded to the site, but only a small amount. I downloaded their album cause it was only for sale in a town in America and I wanted more. they got big and did a tour to Ireland, and I paid €100 + travel expenses to see them with my girlfriend at the time. god I'm such an asshole. send made to jail and throw away the key because the record companies didn't make enough money off me to upgrade their G6 with a cocaine dispenser.

go see your favorite bands on tour, give them the credit they deserve. end of story. ill be going back to see mine when they come back to Ireland.

ID rather pay a Swedish company to tunnel my Internet traffic than get done up the bum every time I buy a physical CD ever again. what a ripoff. if CDs were a fiver Id buy loads, but if the bands is in anyway popular its €20+. I'm sorry, but kindly go **** yourselves.

chin_grin

Petition here.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-sopa-bill-and-any-other-future-bills-threaten-diminish-free-flow-information/g3W1BscR

thefly

thefly wrote: »

As a photographer who has had my images used without permission I resent that statement. I care about my art a huge amount but it's also how I make my living.

And what's wrong with caring about money. If that's how you make your living then you should care about money.

You can't really play that card with me: I'm a musician and software developer, the two industries which have become most entwined with what are now called 'pirates'. There is a huge difference between using someone's work for your own enjoyment and using it for commercial gain. There is also a difference between theft of goods and piracy of intellectual property.

If an entity were to financially profit from my work without my permission, I would be irritated and, yes, I would seek legal recourse. However, I think it is abhorrent that anyone could want to punish individuals who just enjoy the work themselves.

My point is that the organisations who sue individuals and campaign to have content-sharing prohibited are really not even slightly interested in the rights (or even financial security) of artists or the merit of art - they only want money, and as much money as they can possibly get, regardless of how it harms others. Suing people over intellectual property rights has almost become an industry unto itself.

Robdude

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't really play that card with me: I'm a musician and software developer, the two industries which have become most entwined with what are now called 'pirates'. There is a huge difference between using someone's work for your own enjoyment and using it for commercial gain. There is also a difference between theft of goods and piracy of intellectual property.

If an entity were to financially profit from my work without my permission, I would be irritated and, yes, I would seek legal recourse. However, I think it is abhorrent that anyone could want to punish individuals who just enjoy the work themselves.

My point is that the organisations who sue individuals and campaign to have content-sharing prohibited are really not even slightly interested in the rights (or even financial security) of artists or the merit of art - they only want money, and as much money as they can possibly get, regardless of how it harms others. Suing people over intellectual property rights has almost become an industry unto itself.

Since you are both a Musician and Software Developer - I welcome you to allow free distribution of any works you produce. That's entirely your right. If you want to allow everyone who isn't directly profiting from it, the ability to download, share and copy your work - you can.

But isn't it a bit of a stretch to tell other people who create things that they shouldn't be able to decide that for themselves?

Robdude

Robdude wrote: »

But isn't it a bit of a stretch to tell other people who create things that they shouldn't be able to decide that for themselves?

They can decide that for themselves all they like. I was responding to a statement which confuses unauthorised commercial use of a copyrighted work with unauthorised personal use:

thefly wrote:

As a photographer who has had my images used without permission I resent that statement.

There's a very real difference. In one instance, someone is financially profiting from your work, which I will agree is wrong unless you have granted them permission to do so.

My real problem is with the vastly disproportionate response to piracy. Additionally, I think it's a mistake to believe that organisations who file lawsuits over artistic copyright actually care about artists, or that piracy can ever be stopped.

p

Robdude wrote: »

But isn't it a bit of a stretch to tell other people who create things that they shouldn't be able to decide that for themselves?

Yes, it totally is. If producers really believe they can make more money with free or premium content then they should use a Creative Commons licence. Some people have successfully done that.

Most of the comments around piracy are myths or half/myths. If you download something illegally, at least have the balls to admit you're stealing, and it does have a negative impact. Many of the comments basically are just saying "I don't want it to be wrong, therefore it's not."

I always try find legal ways to get content, but it is incredibly difficult to get digital content legally in Ireland. The government and rights holders should focus on that side of things much more if they really want to tackle piracy.