How piracy has benifited everyone

padser · 13-05-2005 12:24PM

Dublin8 wrote:

Hi

1 euro for a windows xp

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

MorningStar · 13-05-2005 01:18PM

padser wrote:

. Only logical follow on is less TV shows, and of lower quality. Im not saying it will make TV shows extinct but i cant see how it wouldnt seriously damage the industry by depriving them of their main source of revenue

It is a possibility but again probably unlikely. THe increase in TV channels hasn't reduced the amount TV available even though the advertisement money has been spread more thinly. A change is needed in the industry alright but it doesn't mean shows dry up. New revenue off tv series have been created along the way. DVD,books, magazines, in show advertisement, channel subscription etc... I don't disagree with the point you are making I just don't think it will have the major impact you are saying. I don't think advertisement is the main form of revenue for many shows anymore, while the majority probably still do they will have to change but that doesn't mean disappear. Actors just won't get the huge salaries, Friends production didn't shoot up but writing and actor prices did because they wanted a share of the profit. If there was less profit there would be less money given to these people.
A lot more complicated than advertisement is the main form of money. THe market has changed drastically so traditional business models won't work anymore or maybe they won't. I heard the same concerns when video tape came out it's not a new point. Piracy on TV shows is certainly a low concern at the moment it's Movie and Music that is the real problem.

Blisterman · 13-05-2005 01:20PM

I hate people pirating things just to save money. Id only download stuff, I can't buy otherwise, and I still buy the DVDs of TV shows.

Dublin8 · 13-05-2005 03:52PM

its not a fair world mate
thats the secret of all the it experts from far east
cheap access to top softwares

padser wrote:

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

WhiteWashMan · 13-05-2005 04:00PM

padser wrote:

I hate microsoft as much as the next guy. But if everyone paid 1 euro for windows XP, windows XP wouldnt exist because it wouldnt have been made. Also people like you paying 1 euro for it mean people who bought it had to pay more for it :mad:

i dont hate microsoft?

it has brought computing to the masses.

you people make me laugh.

anyway, do i download software illegally.
yes. i play test it. if i dont like, it doesnt get played. if i like it, i buy. its that simple. call it an extended demo version if you will.

dont download music, except for the odd song, and mst of that is either classical, or game or film related. cant remember the last time i downloaded an album. many eayrs ago i suspect.

i dont really have time for warez monkeys or software pirates. the designers, writers, coders and whatever else deserve their money for the work if youa re going to enjy it.

MorningStar · 13-05-2005 04:09PM

In all fairness the US forced other countries to extend the copyrights on things that were about to expire. The likes of Elvis early work was just about to be copyright free. There is war between the rich and poor

Kernel · 13-05-2005 04:26PM

MorningStar wrote:

The basic business model needs to change but it means more risk and less profit. This is why the film industry resists and the music industry is in a similar state.

I agree with you on that, however, gambles are only made when the loss can be afforded by the business, which is why you see endless sequels and the occasional original gem.

MorningStar wrote:

Piracy and copyright also applies to things like medicine. This is where it could really hurt people. If there is no profit in this the research will stop and medicine won't be available or invented. THe US government stomped over medicine right over SARS and one of the spoils of WWII was Asprin and other medical copyrights.

Asprin was actually used by the ancient Egyptians, and synthesised and widely used by the Victorians, it wasn't a product of WW2?

I'm not sure I follow your point about copyright regarding medicine. In my opinion, copyrighting medicine is necessary in order to promote profit (the ruler of all in the 21st century), but it can also make the medicine too expensive for poorer nations. A perfect example of this is the fact that the WTO recently pressured India into accepting their copyright laws, which will result in medicine increasing hugely in cost, to the point that many Indians will no longer be able to afford it. Previously, India stuck to a copyright law which basically meant that the method of manufacture of a drug was copyrighted, but the drug itself was not... after all a drug is just a collection of molecules, so how can you patent molecules? And yes, I know everything is just molecules, but drugs/chemicals are a little different.

It's estimated that 2 million people died in the Congo of preventable disease in the last 4 years, largely because they can't afford the treatments!

MorningStar · 13-05-2005 04:59PM

Kernel wrote:

I agree with you on that, however, gambles are only made when the loss can be afforded by the business, which is why you see endless sequels and the occasional original gem.

Asprin was actually used by the ancient Egyptians, and synthesised and widely used by the Victorians, it wasn't a product of WW2?

!

Businesses don't just take risks that they can afford. Companies go bust all the time because of it. THe huge drop in share price on one of the medical companies shows this. Filmfour nearly went bust as a result of the movie they did with Nicole Kidman. Not sure of all the names and details but basically companies can close due to risks they take.

Sorry I mixed up asprin with something else but there were other medical copyrights taken off German companies at the end of WWI and II. You are also right about the negative effects that copyright effects poorer countries. It also has to be noted that India is taking jobs away from countries like Ireland while also not paying copyright money to the companies providing the employment. As a memebr of the EU we were never able to do this. There are humaine issues and business issues one shows an obvious human cost the other doesn't and is generally seen as greed but has similar impact. Medicine is the creation of things that didn't exist it is no different from any other production. Anybody could build a car to look and react like another but copyright stops it.

User45701 · 13-05-2005 05:01PM

If TV shows and movies where aired at the same time all over the world i wouldnt download

padser · 13-05-2005 05:07PM

Kernel wrote:

but the drug itself was not... after all a drug is just a collection of molecules, so how can you patent molecules? .

!

I think the medicine point is actually almost identical, you say that you cant patent a collection of molecules, of course you can, if that collection is of particular value, and you discovered that it is of value then you should be able to make money from it. If you cant you wouldnt bothered making the discovery in the first place and you sure as hell cant afford to put in the money to make the next one.

Someone answer this, if i run a drug company, and i have two choices,
a)spend 200 million developing a new drug that saves lives and makes 400 million profit
b)let someone else develope the drug, copy it, and make 400 million profit.

Which will i do??? Patenting drugs prevents option B and facilitates new drugs being developed. sure we need controls and we need to make sure medical drugs are available to all but it cant be to the detriment of R&D

Kernel · 13-05-2005 05:44PM

padser wrote:

I think the medicine point is actually almost identical, you say that you cant patent a collection of molecules, of course you can, if that collection is of particular value, and you discovered that it is of value then you should be able to make money from it. If you cant you wouldnt bothered making the discovery in the first place and you sure as hell cant afford to put in the money to make the next one.

Someone answer this, if i run a drug company, and i have two choices,
a)spend 200 million developing a new drug that saves lives and makes 400 million profit
b)let someone else develope the drug, copy it, and make 400 million profit.

Which will i do??? Patenting drugs prevents option B and facilitates new drugs being developed. sure we need controls and we need to make sure medical drugs are available to all but it cant be to the detriment of R&D

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

bp_me · 13-05-2005 05:45PM

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

Often times the drug itself is patented.

Wertz · 13-05-2005 05:48PM

Look at the amount of artistic creation that pirated copys of Adobe Photoshop have fueled across the web.
I mean €600+ for a s/w suite puts it far beyond the reach of most people (who don't use it for work). Adobe make their money from selling the licenses to companies all over the world; it doesn't really hurt the company to have pirated versions loose on the web since the vast majority of people who d/l would never have considered buying it in the first place.
I understand that coders, devs and shareholders don't deserve to loose revenue through piracy and that counterfeiting has the potential to crash some sectors of the software industry...PS is the only pirated application I have/use and the only time it get's dug out is when I need to make a sig or crop some photos (which I could easily do with a generic photo editing suite).
If I were to ever become good enough with it or managed to find a job that I used it in, I would quite happily fork out the dough.

Kernel · 13-05-2005 05:49PM

bp_me wrote:

Often times the drug itself is patented.

The drug is always patented according to WTO copyright laws, but we were talking about Indian law and how that has been forced to change, resulting in much more expensive medicine (but more profits for western drug companies).

People, not profit.

The_Bullman · 13-05-2005 06:04PM

MorningStar wrote:

Sorry I mixed up asprin with something else ....

did you mix it up with Sarin? I'm always doing that

LadyJ · 13-05-2005 06:23PM

Ha! I thought this was a thread about how PRIVACY is a benefit! Was gonna tell a totally off topic story about forgetting to lock my bedroom door being caught red-handed doin..... stuff!

Kernel · 13-05-2005 06:27PM

LadyJ wrote:

Ha! I thought this was a thread about how PRIVACY is a benefit! Was gonna tell a totally off topic story about forgetting to lock my bedroom door being caught red-handed doin..... stuff!

Ah you can't do that... you have to tell us now.

LadyJ · 13-05-2005 06:31PM

Key words are: aunt,vibrator and shame!

padser · 13-05-2005 07:44PM

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but you've completely glossed over the point. The method of manufacturing the drugs could be patented, but if someone could manufacture the drug in another way, then under old law it would have been allowed. What about plans to patent human genes? Do you also agree with that? After all, it costs money to research and identify a gene?

I actually think its pretty irrelevent whether what gets patented just so long as whoever forks out for the R&D get the profit from the drug. Keeping prices down can be achieved through strict regulation> The drug industry is one of the few where i would support a cap on profits, something like if you develope a new drug you can be sole producer for say 20 yrs and make a profit over and above R&D expensives of x% over that timeframe.

And yes if Expensive R&D is required to identify a gene then in order to fund that research i have no problem if that gene is patented (just so long as i dont get in trouble for having the gene

)

sceptre · 14-05-2005 12:20AM

MorningStar wrote:

In all fairness the US forced other countries to extend the copyrights on things that were about to expire. The likes of Elvis early work was just about to be copyright free. There is war between the rich and poor

Disney - not Elvis. Even the earliest stuff recorded by Elvis wasn't going to be out of copyright for a good quarter century after Disney's Steamboat Willie. It isn't quite true that the US forced anyone else to extend their copyright terms either but they did extend their own and other countries followed with the odd nudge from WIPO.

b3t4 · 14-05-2005 01:25AM

The USA abused copyright laws in their day. Books by Charles Dickens that were copyrighted in this part of the world were being blantantly copied and distributed in the USA regardless of copyright.

Grisoft realease their anti-virus software free to individual home users in comparison to other anti-virus companies. They have realised that they make most of their money from large companies so why not give it away free to home users.

Is it not a case of these buisnesses being greedy? Government tax and the likes? In the case of music cd's if they were available at a more reasonable price would people still bother to download/burn etc. People are creatures who like convience. Buying a cheap cd in a shop is much more convient than going to the hassle of finding mp3's to download. Also if they were cheaper wouldn't it be a case that it would make for more people buying them. If they want to keep copyrights, paying for music and the likes, apple.com appear to be doing quite well with their download store. Music is available cheaply and easily accesible.

Also, take a look at open source software which is available for free. Redhat appear to be doing quite well for themselves. Dell recently invested nearly $100 million in Linux vendor Red Hat. RedHat make their money from supporting the software.

Well just my thoughts.

A.

sceptre · 14-05-2005 02:51AM

b3t4 wrote:

The USA abused copyright laws in their day. Books by Charles Dickens that were copyrighted in this part of the world were being blantantly copied and distributed in the USA regardless of copyright.

In fairness, everyone mentions poor Dickens (who, mind you, found a replacement for US royalties by going on reading tours there, the first of which made him 42 grand, which accounted for half of his estate) but forget that everyone was screwing foreign authors back then. Dickens did pretty well from his reading tours regardless, unlike Walter Scott for example who was a better writer than reader and went broke.

Twain never made a penny from Canada before he lived there for some time to meet residency requirements before issuing The Prince and the Pauper (a pirated Canadian edition of Tom Sawyer appeared even before the US or any other edition was out (and everyone thought Napster got there first)). The Canadians didn't give a fiddlers about US copyrights, even the newly-passed Canadian law in 1890ish laid it down that in order to have any Canadian copyright at all, a book would have to be published in Canada within thirty days of its initial publishing elsewhere.

The UK only recognised foreign copyrights if the book was published in the UK first, hence Huck Finn was published in the UK before the US. Huxley got around the US thing by having an American write the preface and registering the book under the name of the preface-writer whereas Kipling decided the money wasn't that important. All of Kipling's early works were initially published in India which meant that they were unprotected and pirated by everybody outside India.

Oh they were all at it. Don't just blame the Americans for this - save the vitriol for something useful like oil drilling or invading Puerto Rico or something.

Our man in Havana · 14-05-2005 05:54AM

Drugs can only be patented for 7 years after which any company can make them.

b3t4 · 14-05-2005 09:17AM

sceptre wrote:

Oh they were all at it. Don't just blame the Americans for this - save the vitriol for something useful like oil drilling or invading Puerto Rico or something.

I was using the only example I knew of. It was never meant to be an attack on America.

A.

MorningStar · 16-05-2005 01:00PM

sceptre wrote:

Disney - not Elvis. Even the earliest stuff recorded by Elvis wasn't going to be out of copyright for a good quarter century after Disney's Steamboat Willie. It isn't quite true that the US forced anyone else to extend their copyright terms either but they did extend their own and other countries followed with the odd nudge from WIPO.

No I meant Elvis not sure of all the details but rights were expiring on a lot of early rock and roll. It might have been the recordings as opposed to the song rights if I remember correctly. I completely disagree with the belief the US didn't force people. They were threatening with everything they could from levies to withdrawl of aid and that was not to small 3rd world countries it was to everybody. There were also forces in the EU that wanted this but no where near as loud as the US. It was all their own actions but the US was the engine behind it.

rubadub · 16-05-2005 01:22PM

the_syco wrote:

how it has benifited us, or not (certain copyrighted CD's unplayable in MAC's/PC's).

Gives another good excuse to demand your cash back in music shops, so it is good in my book

How piracy has benifited everyone

Comments