Do you agree or disagree with digital piracy

[HirgaLTTki]

Unless I feel something is worth the money, then I will pay for it. I am trying to not pirate as many things as I can except for movies and TV shows...

[Dravic]

I agree. Digital piracy isn't wrong - it's simply the name we give to the natural function of the internet (the freedom and dissemination of information) when applied to content attached to a payment system that's not fit for purpose.

 

There are a few realities that you need to take into account...

 

- We took our real-world payment system, with its mechanics and its ethics and applied it to a medium that's completely different (the digital space of the internet), expecting it to work...

 

- Pretty much all digital content is now available for free (via "piracy").

 

- In a system where content is infinitely reproducible with no material cost, supply and demand collapses and value becomes largely subjective.

 

 

And the final reality...As a content creator, what benefit do I get from "CANT AFFORD IT? NOT FOR YOU"? People have a choice to buy, pirate or go without. Obviously it benefits me more if they buy than if they pirate, but it also benefits me more if they pirate than if they go without. If they pirate they might buy the expansion, or the follow-up, or the prequel, or the album, or recommend it to their friends who recommend it to their friends and some of them might buy it. If however they don't pirate it and just go without...What do I get as the content creator? Nothing.

 

The idea that people denying themselves digital content is somehow morally superior to piracy is ridiculous, because that decision is detrimental to everyone involved by comparison.

 

...

 

So, the result of these realities is that piracy is better than nothing, value is subjective and if anyone disagrees with the set price, they can get it for free instead. Solution? Two things...

 

1: Allow people to pay what they feel content is worth. If you set something at $30, then you're missing out on all those people who would be willing to pay between $1 and $29, but you're also missing out on everyone who would pay more than $30 (as we see people doing with the Humble Indie Bundles).

 

2: Start encouraging people to pay what they feel that content is worth. Trying to hammer "don't pirate, buy it instead!" into peoples' heads as a moral choice will never work, because it's not logical and it's not moral in context to reality. If however you encourage people to pay for the value they've gotten out of something - when they're able - then you most definitely have the logical and moral high-ground. All the arguments of "if the content creators aren't paid, they can't continue to make content" suddenly hold water, where currently they don't.

 

 

 

I can't imagine "the law is wrong" works very well as a defense in court, even when you're right. I'd use it as a last resort, not as my first option.

 

You are very silly thinking that if you let everybody pay what they wont you will benefit more than if you set a price of say 30$.

 

Humble Bundle? Sure i love them but hey how many people actually pay more than 5$ (average)? 100? So what is it, you preffer to sell 1,000,000 for 1$ than 100,000 for 30$?

 

lol.

 

Sir, you dont know how this world works. You have to advertise. If Activision set price of 1$ on COD nobody would buy it because Activision would never get those billions going for advertising...

[Joshua]

Why would I be against something marvelous that is completely legal?

 

Man, you'll say that anywhere you can!! 

[Flynn]

I am conducting a poll that is open to anyone and everyone it is for my latest legal studies assignment and my topic is digital piracy

 

The poll is not compulsory but it would help significantly

 

thankyou

 

Do I agree or disagree with doing it?  Do I agree or disagree with what is called piracy?  What exactly is the question.   

[DirkaFat]

I agree. Digital piracy isn't wrong - it's simply the name we give to the natural function of the internet (the freedom and dissemination of information) when applied to content attached to a payment system that's not fit for purpose.

 

There are a few realities that you need to take into account...

 

- We took our real-world payment system, with its mechanics and its ethics and applied it to a medium that's completely different (the digital space of the internet), expecting it to work...

 

- Pretty much all digital content is now available for free (via "piracy").

 

- In a system where content is infinitely reproducible with no material cost, supply and demand collapses and value becomes largely subjective.

 

 

And the final reality...As a content creator, what benefit do I get from "CANT AFFORD IT? NOT FOR YOU"? People have a choice to buy, pirate or go without. Obviously it benefits me more if they buy than if they pirate, but it also benefits me more if they pirate than if they go without. If they pirate they might buy the expansion, or the follow-up, or the prequel, or the album, or recommend it to their friends who recommend it to their friends and some of them might buy it. If however they don't pirate it and just go without...What do I get as the content creator? Nothing.

 

The idea that people denying themselves digital content is somehow morally superior to piracy is ridiculous, because that decision is detrimental to everyone involved by comparison.

 

...

 

So, the result of these realities is that piracy is better than nothing, value is subjective and if anyone disagrees with the set price, they can get it for free instead. Solution? Two things...

 

1: Allow people to pay what they feel content is worth. If you set something at $30, then you're missing out on all those people who would be willing to pay between $1 and $29, but you're also missing out on everyone who would pay more than $30 (as we see people doing with the Humble Indie Bundles).

 

2: Start encouraging people to pay what they feel that content is worth. Trying to hammer "don't pirate, buy it instead!" into peoples' heads as a moral choice will never work, because it's not logical and it's not moral in context to reality. If however you encourage people to pay for the value they've gotten out of something - when they're able - then you most definitely have the logical and moral high-ground. All the arguments of "if the content creators aren't paid, they can't continue to make content" suddenly hold water, where currently they don't.

 

 

 

I can't imagine "the law is wrong" works very well as a defense in court, even when you're right. I'd use it as a last resort, not as my first option.

At least in the US, obtaining copies without paying is not a freedom.

- Yep

-Yes

- There is a lot of money that goes into the creation of the software, as well as advertisements, etc.

I dunno man. There is a lot of anti piracy stuff. A lot of ads and warnings against piracy. It must have some sort of negative impact.

[solosdk]

I pirate 90% of stuff i dont give a damn about the the creators, they earn too much and are money-loving b******s!

[Toby]

You are very silly thinking that if you let everybody pay what they wont you will benefit more than if you set a price of say 30$.

 

Humble Bundle? Sure i love them but hey how many people actually pay more than 5$ (average)? 100? So what is it, you preffer to sell 1,000,000 for 1$ than 100,000 for 30$?

 

lol.

 

Sir, you dont know how this world works. You have to advertise. If Activision set price of 1$ on COD nobody would buy it because Activision would never get those billions going for advertising...

 

The average amount spent on the Humble Bundle is $5. If you take into account the age of those games and that the people spending that $5 probably aren't the biggest fans of those franchises (hence the reason it's taken them this long to get them), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the average amount spent (voluntarily) on a new game to also be $5, if not more.

 

In which case, I can argue that if they sold a new game with the system I proposed above, they would sell 1,000,000 for $5, rather than 100,000 for $30. That'd be an extra $2,000,000 for their advertising budget.

 

But wait, there's more. I said two things need to happen. You're only accounting for the first one and applying it to today's systems and attitudes. In a culture that encouraged people to spend an equivalent amount on a product to the value they got out of it (which does not currently exist), I think it'd be reasonable to expect that number to go up. Hell, just look at how many people feel worse about the idea of pirating indie games (which tend to be priced more according to the value people get from them), compared to AAA titles...That distinction didn't exist until somewhat recently, but it's a sentiment that's been cultured amongst gaming communities and has resulted in Indie games being a more feasible venture as a result.

[DirkaFat]

I pirate 90% of stuff i dont give a damn about the the creators, they earn too much and are money-loving b******s!

You don't like money? Not all content creators earn "too much".

[DirkaFat]

The average amount spent on the Humble Bundle is $5. If you take into account the age of those games and that the people spending that $5 probably aren't the biggest fans of those franchises (hence the reason it's taken them this long to get them), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the average amount spent (voluntarily) on a new game to also be $5, if not more.

 

In which case, I can argue that if they sold a new game with the system I proposed above, they would sell 1,000,000 for $5, rather than 100,000 for $30.

 

But wait, there's more. I said two things need to happen. You're only accounting for the first one and applying it to today's systems and attitudes. In a culture that encouraged people to spend an equivalent amount on a product to the value they got out of it (which does not currently exist), I think it'd be reasonable to expect that number to go up. Hell, just look at how many people feel worse about the idea of pirating indie games...That distinction didn't exist until somewhat recently, but it's a sentiment that's been cultured amongst gaming communities.

1,000,000 for $5 compared to 100,000 for $30? You sure that's going to be the case?

[Toby]

1,000,000 for $5 compared to 100,000 for $30? You sure that's going to be the case?

 

I was just using his numbers.

 

I kept my second point simple for the sake of the discussion, but if the culture was that of "spend as much as the value you've gotten from it - if you can", then the vendors would undoubtedly change their systems to try and eek out a little more money from people. They'd add spending leaderboards, give you trinkets/achievements for spending X amount on your account, you might get some kind of bonus service for spending above a certain threshold (services generally not being piratable). You'd also have people that loved something and continued to donate for it. There are still communities that surround games like VTM: Bloodlines, Titan Quest, Fallout 3  etc. that have people who would quite happily have continued to donate $5 here or $10 there, if not significantly more.

 

If you only take the first part of my solution, then yes, it wouldn't be as successful. If you look at things like the Radiohead album or the Neil Gaiman book that went up as "pay what you want", then it's arguably already a feasible system, but what I'm outlining is significantly more than just that.

[DyGr00339]

For me to go to the store in my small city and hope the movie or TV show is there? I pay those companies enough already! Same with music, where I am its very little selection and I cannot order online because I do not own a credit card.. Adobe products I pirate because I purchased lightroom 4 then out of the blur lightroom 5 came like 2 weeks after i got the old one....

[nothingspecial]

One thing to think of is the fact that people have to get paid in the creative industries, particualarly the music business.

 

For example, a band may get a £50,000 advance to make an album, but the money that they actually recieve for sales from the record company is about 20p per album. That is split between band members, and the £50,000 advance has to be paid back before they ever see any actual profit. So a samller band is going to need the money more than some crappy pop band who earn £millions out of selling bags and sweets with their faces on. Not that I've bothered downloading any music since getting Spotify. Again, there's debate about the money bands get from there being less, but that's a different topic.

 

Films and TV are a bit different, because there more traditional "you do stuff, you get paid" and the creators have other ways of making money.

 

One thing I'd never do anymore, though, is buy pirate stuff from anyone. Think that's a bit cheeky, people who burn DVDs and sell them. Seems to have gone away a bit lately, but used to see it a lot.

[DirkaFat]

I was just using his numbers.

 

I kept my second point simple for the sake of the discussion, but if the culture was that of "spend as much as the value you've gotten from it - if you can", then the vendors would undoubtedly change their systems to try and eek out a little more money from people. They'd add spending leaderboards, give you trinkets/achievements for spending X amount on your account, you might get some kind of bonus service for spending above a certain threshold (services generally not being piratable). You'd also have people that loved something and continued to donate for it. There are still communities that surround games like VTM: Bloodlines, Titan Quest, Fallout 3  etc. that have people who would quite happily have continued to donate $5 here or $10 there, if not significantly more.

 

If you only take the first part of my solution, then yes, it wouldn't be as successful. If you look at things like the Radiohead album or the Neil Gaiman book that went up as "pay what you want", then it's arguably already a feasible system, but what I'm outlining is significantly more than just that.

That's not going to stop pirating. You sure your conditions will be for the better for all companies big or small, infamous or famous? Why aren't other companies adopting this system, instead continue to advertise against pirating? 

[Toby]

That's not going to stop pirating. You sure your conditions will be for the better for all companies big or small, infamous or famous? Why aren't other companies adopting this system, instead continue to advertise against pirating? 

 

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying my solution would "stop" pirating. Pirating wouldn't technically exist, because as I said before, pirating is simply the name we give to the natural function of the internet operating in a specific context. Once that context is gone, pirating simply becomes downloading.

 

Other companies are adopting this system, albeit very slowly (and that's for a few reasons I'll get to later). Take Spotify as an example. They've now realized that allowing people to listen to music for free is better than not having it listened to at all, and makes people more likely to pay for it. They also realize people will pay extra for convience and bonus features (offline play and higher bitrate streaming). Their payment model is slightly different to mine in terms of allowing unlimited access to the entire library for a set fee and indeed, it's a superior model to mine in some ways and inferior in others. However, they aren't going to advocate piracy because they want people to be using their service, despite the fact that the free aspect of that service is essentially identical to pirating music.

 

I will also say that the reluctance comes from a mixture of closed-mindedness, fear and broken systems (the music industry business being a fair example). Though again, you also have the fact that adopting this system now would not include the second part of my solution. It'd take a company with balls and influence for us to do anything but transition tediously slowly from the current system to the one I propose (and will come, in some form, eventually).

[mozoa]

I think people want to take content for a testrun before they buy,

If I 'pirate' a game and it works alright, sure I'll buy it.

This has prevented me from buying about 10 games, they were horribly broken.

And I have bought like.. 2 or 3 from testing.

 

And I do download music,,. because i want the music offline too, without paying for it.

it should be legal everywhere (it is here) because.. they are putting it up for free, on youtube.

Why would I pay for something that is on youtube if i want to listen it without youtube

They are not going to make money off of me anyways. (AB+)

If I honestly enjoy a band, I'll buy their album. on CD.

Digital distribution is stupid these days, DRM as such. I bought the right to listen to it. then let me listen to it everywhere. *cough*iTunes*cough*

 

Software is a different story. I could look a Adobe salesman dead in the eye and laugh in his face.

the whole suite is like.. 1500 euro or something. I only use it for a hobby.

Same goes for Microsoft Office, every school sort of throws it in your face, I've tried libreoffice and such. the layouts get messed up real nice.

And my school in particular tried to force Publisher, while that is only in the professional suite.

But I tend to use free software where possible, I'd rather use VLC than PowerDVD

But they must be about equal. GIMP is not a good replacement for photoshop, it lacks usabilty.

 

That was my opinion, Think of it what you want.

[DirkaFat]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying my solution would "stop" pirating. Pirating wouldn't technically exist, because as I said before, pirating is simply the name we give to the natural function of the internet operating in a specific context. Once that context is gone, pirating simply becomes downloading.

 

Other companies are adopting this system, albeit very slowly (and that's for a few reasons I'll get to later). Take Spotify as an example. They've now realized that allowing people to listen to music for free is better than not having it listened to at all, and makes people more likely to pay for it. They also realize people will pay extra for convience and bonus features (offline play and higher bitrate streaming). Their payment model is slightly different to mine in terms of allowing unlimited access to the entire library for a set fee and indeed, it's a superior model to mine in some ways and inferior in others. However, they aren't going to advocate piracy because they want people to be using their service, despite the fact that the free aspect of that service is essentially identical to pirating music.

 

I will also say that the reluctance comes from a mixture of closed-mindedness, fear and broken systems (the music industry business being a fair example). Though again, you also have the fact that adopting this system now would not include the second part of my solution. It'd take a company with balls and influence for us to do anything but transition tediously slowly from the current system to the one I propose (and will come, in some form, eventually).

Natural? Pirating simply cannot be considered downloading, because it's downloading copies without paying. Perhaps the law can change. Which it probably won't happen because pirating has a negative effect on content creators. By system I was referring to both of your conditions. You didn't answer my question. How do you know it will work with all industries?

[bosnian_guy]

I live in Bosnia and Herzegovina so it is almost impossible to buy legal software and other digital content, I pirate stuff because I can't buy it. If I had a possibility to buy stuff like music and games from Steam I would do it. Plus online shopping in my country is not developed and underdeveloped.

[Toby]

Natural? Pirating simply cannot be considered downloading, because it's downloading copies without paying. Perhaps the law can change. Which it probably won't happen because pirating has a negative effect on content creators. By system I was referring to both of your conditions. You didn't answer my question. How do you know it will work with all industries?

 

Yes, natural. If you consider what the internet is, then piracy is just doing what the internet was made to do, but with particular information in a context that certain people dislike and thus it gets called "piracy". My system wouldn't obligate paying anything, because as I already explained, content creators benefit more from someone pirating their creation than from someone going without. Whether they've paid for it or not, you want people to be using/watching/listening to/playing your creation, because both are preferable to them not using/watching/listening to or playing your creation at all. So, since you want people who aren't paying for your creation to be "pirating" it instead, you need to integrate that into your payment model.

 

To answer your other question, if my system were reality, it would work with all industries, because there'd be no reason for anyone to be paying any less than they do now. However, reality isn't usually quite so rosy, but I still expect there'd be a net gain, since the kind of person who'd pay nothing under my system is probably already paying nothing under our current system.

[DirkaFat]

Yes, natural. If you consider what the internet is, then piracy is just doing what the internet was made to do, but with particular information in a context that certain people dislike and thus it gets called "piracy". My system wouldn't obligate paying anything, because as I already explained, content creators benefit more from someone pirating their creation than from someone going without. Whether they've paid for it or not, you want people to be using/watching/listening to/playing your creation, because both are preferable to them not using/watching/listening to or playing your creation at all. So, since you want people who aren't paying for your creation to be "pirating" it instead, you need to integrate that into your payment model.

 

To answer your other question, if my system were reality, it would work with all industries, because there'd be no reason for anyone to be paying any less than they do now. However, reality isn't usually quite so rosy, but I still expect there'd be a net gain, since the kind of person who'd pay nothing under my system is probably already paying nothing under our current system.

Yes, the internet was made to exchange, upload, download all sorts of data, but dislike is a... misleading term to use. At least in the US, piracy is illegal. Can you explain what you mean by "no need to be paying less"? You still didn't answer my question. How do you know it will work?

 

I think this is getting off topic. So would you also explain (to refresh) why you agree (I assume) with pirating. Just that. After all, that's all what this thread asks of us.

[Toby]

Yes, the internet was made to exchange, upload, download all sorts of data, but dislike is a... misleading term to use. At least in the US, piracy is illegal. Can you explain what you mean by "no need to be paying less"? You still didn't answer my question. How do you know it will work?

 

I think this is getting off topic. So would you also explain (to refresh) why you agree (I assume) with pirating. Just that. After all, that's all what this thread asks of us.

 

Dislike is precisely the term to use, because piracy is simply the inevitable result of trying to force a broken system to work in an environment it wasn't made for. Piracy isn't a problem - the system is. Piracy may well be illegal in the US, but as we well know, legality doesn't always equate to morality. I'm paying the legality of piracy absolutely no concern in this thread, so don't take it into account for any of my arguments. I'm talking about right and wrong, that's all.

 

You quote me as saying "no need to be paying less", but I never said those words. I explained why I believe it will work. I can't "know" anything about something that hasn't happened yet. I can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if it does, I'll still be alive to see it. I can only make predictions and form expectations based on what I believe to be true.

 

To return to the basic point, it's as I said in the first sentence of this post. I "agree" with piracy in so far as I believe piracy is an inevitable result of a broken system. We took our "real-world" payment system, with both it's mechanics and it's ethics and for some reason decided that it would be equally as suitable for digital information. It isn't. There are conflicts between the mechanics of that payment system and the mechanics of the internet, and one of the inevitable results of some or all of those conflicts is "piracy". I also agree with piracy in so far as all parties involved (including content creators) benefit more by someone pirating a piece of content than by someone "going without" that content and as such, "going without" a piece of digital content that you're interested in is in fact morally inferior to pirating it.

[Tuckfam]

My main problem is how piracy is dealt with, mainly by game publishers. It affects me, the paying customer, it makes my experience more difficult to deal with. I'd love to blame piracy for it, but their way of dealing with it is the problem. More people will pirate if your damn game requires three always on drm accounts to play a 60 dollar title that's 5 hours long. Create a reasonable way for customers to play your game, or watch your show/film or whatever, and people who want to pay will do that. People who never intended to pay aren't suddenly going to turn around and start throwing money at you.

 

I don't have very strong feelings about piracy in general. It ain't good, it ain't evil, it just... is.

[DirkaFat]

Dislike is precisely the term to use, because piracy is simply the inevitable result of trying to force a broken system to work in an environment it wasn't made for. Piracy isn't a problem - the system is. Piracy may well be illegal in the US, but as we well know, legality doesn't always equate to morality. I'm paying the legality of piracy absolutely no concern in this thread, so don't take it into account for any of my arguments. I'm talking about right and wrong, that's all.

 

You quote me as saying "no need to be paying less", but I never said those words. I explained why I believe it will work. I can't "know" anything about something that hasn't happened yet. I can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that if it does, I'll still be alive to see it. I can only make predictions and form expectations based on what I believe to be true.

 

To return to the basic point, it's as I said in the first sentence of this post. I "agree" with piracy in so far as I believe piracy is an inevitable result of a broken system. We took our "real-world" payment system, with both it's mechanics and it's ethics and for some reason decided that it would be equally as suitable for digital information. It isn't. There are conflicts between the mechanics of that payment system and the mechanics of the internet, and one of the inevitable results of some or all of those conflicts is "piracy". I also agree with piracy in so far as all parties involved (including content creators) benefit more by someone pirating a piece of content than by someone "going without" that content and as such, "going without" a piece of digital content that you're interested in is in fact morally inferior to pirating it.

In terms of digital software, each copy has a price (unless it's marketed as free). Downloading the data that has a price on it, is essentially stealing a copy. Yes, you said those words. And just because something is inevitable doesn't mean you have to agree with it. For example, drug abuse. How do you know pirating benefits all content creators? There are a lot of anti piracy steps taken, so it must have a negative impact. (If piracy was actually brining in some sort of money, companies would protest against it).

[delet my acc pls]

Why would I be against something marvelous that is completely legal?

oh looney you and your schnitzels and legal pirating

[qwertywarrior]

lol wait i read it as

do u agree with digital privacy xD

 

 

 

 

 

i dont agree or disagree with digital piracy

 

i dont really give a damn

sometimes i buy and sometimes i dont 

 

when u have $7.99 netflix HD worldwide then give me a call

[Zarex]

For me the only thing I pirate is Anime episodes as it usually takes forever to come out here and even when they do the Eng Dub is mostly attrocious or they make it more suitable for kids by changing the translations to get away from swear words ect.. 

 

I still buy about 80% of the episodes that I DL when they eventually come out on DvD