because you don't have a right to be a pirate

I bet you downloaded those Paramore albums!!

If I created a website that specifically allowed drug addicts easy, free access to drug dealers, would I be breaking the law?

if you facilitated all the transactions you would be

i don't have a big problem with piracy at all, and for the most part I'm pretty sympathetic towards it, but anyone SHOCKED by the fact that openly facilitating piracy on a large scale is likely to end your ass up in jail is kinda dumb.

lesson learned for the umpteenth time: keep that shit low key!!!!! When you get huge like the pirate bay you're putting yourself at risk and content quality usually suffers. Warez and shit like that has always thrived in places like usenet or on private BBS/FTP/tracker servers, every time you open these things to the general public it gets filled with bullshit fakes and viruses and/or gets brought down in a futile legal struggle against copyright holders. Big surprise, the system is rigged by the folks with all the money!

Which is more legal in sense, the Zoo or Piratebay?

i don't know what you're talking about

I bet you downloaded those Paramore albums!!

i listen to paramore on spotify the free legal music streaming service

joe i thought you didnt believe in intellectual property??

well it exists and there's laws in place to protect it, so whether or not I believe in it doesn't really matter. Alls I'm saying is that it's pretty clear what the primary function of THE PIRATE BAY was and I'm not going to pretend to ignore the obvious agree that it's 'just like google' when the torrents/tracker is basically automatically pairing clients and seeders of pirated material. If you're gonna do or facilitate illegal shit, be smarter about it.

I don't think that whether pirating things SHOULD be legal or not is that clear. I actually think it should be legal. I dont know, I think its pretty obvious a lot of people share that opinion but lots of people try to cultivate some sort of piracy guilt, like that its OBVIOUSLY WRONG. I think its unfair to artists that piracy is that easy, but I dont think that makes it wrong.

The way I see it is, the internet is slowly going to make the entertainment industry as it exists today obsolete. The 21rst century's technological situation has reduced the worth of popular media to almost nothing because of file sharing. Its terrible, its unfair to people who make a living out of it, but there's nothing they can do about it. You cant just undo technology. Their attempts at making people feel bad by calling file sharing theft are pathetic. Copy isn't theft. If you had a machine that could duplicate houses, using it would be unfair to house builders, but it wouldn't be theft. Fuck house builders, gimme my free house, and go build trains instead, or become a house duplicator machine repairman.

(also wow I just posted on GW for the first time in months)

I don't think that whether pirating things SHOULD be legal or not is that clear. I actually think it should be legal. I dont know, I think its pretty obvious a lot of people share that opinion but lots of people try to cultivate some sort of piracy guilt, like that its OBVIOUSLY WRONG. I think its unfair to artists that piracy is that easy, but I dont think that makes it wrong.

The way I see it is, the internet is slowly going to make the entertainment industry as it exists today obsolete. The 21rst century's technological situation has reduced the worth of popular media to almost nothing because of file sharing. Its terrible, its unfair to people who make a living out of it, but there's nothing they can do about it. You cant just undo technology. Their attempts at making people feel bad by calling file sharing theft are pathetic. Copy isn't theft. If you had a machine that could duplicate houses, using it would be unfair to house builders, but it wouldn't be theft. Fuck house builders, gimme my free house, and go build trains instead, or become a house duplicator machine repairman.

(also wow I just posted on GW for the first time in months)

this is one of the dumber arguments against copyright I've ever heard. The house analogy doesn't even apply.

Say you put your thousands of dollars producing an album intending to sell it for a small amount to recoup your expenses. Then someone comes along and gives YOUR work away for free. YOUR work that you put your time effort and money into. You think that is RIGHT? Maybe if you had the ability to produce anything of value you'd think differently. 

moral and ethics sometimes as in in some cases doesn't go hand in hand with written law. There have already been several issues, but in the end the law wins, no because it's the true justice but because it's the law, and everyone plays it.

If the judgement based on the laws sees that hosting torrent sites is legal then I think it is legally not a crime however we see that it's OBVIOUS that the true colors of it are actually illegal

this is one of the dumber arguments against copyright I've ever heard. The house analogy doesn't even apply.

Say you put your thousands of dollars producing an album intending to sell it for a small amount to recoup your expenses. Then someone comes along and gives YOUR work away for free. YOUR work that you put your time effort and money into. You think that is RIGHT?

I don't see how the house analogy doesn't apply, even your own argument works with it. The only bias the analogy has works in your favor: individual houses have to be built while one music track can be sold over and over again, so it would be a bigger loss to the house builders than to people in the music industry.

Your reply to my argument is pretty much "But its unfair, people work on shit and spend time and ressources and they need compensation". I agree! I said that the situation is unfair to artists, but I don't think its wrong for the potential consumer to get the free version if its easy to obtain. Its unrealistic to expect people to choose to buy music en masse if the free version is just as easy to get if not easier, its like expecting people to send money to charities: it can happen but you sure as hell cant count on that. The music and movie industries have to change their approach entirely or are condemned to wither and die as torrents and shit become even more mainstream and easy.

The fact copying music is easy and accessible has made music as files essentially "worthless". Just like any image you find on the internet and can just save on your hard drive is "worthless". What still has a worth however is the intellectual property itself: while the music file is worthless by itself, the rights to use it in a movie or in some other commercial manner still has a high value.
Same goes for any image file you find on the web: You would probably pay the image's author if you were to use the file in a commercial job like a website layout, but you would never pay him to just stick it on your hard drive to look at it or as a desktop background, right? That analogy works pretty well because it establishes the difference between copying an image file on your computer, and the theft of the author's intellectual property. The music industry is trying to convince you that copying a file is stealing IP, and its not. Claiming you made it, selling it or using that song in your own movie is. They put a price tag on something that current technology has made "worthless", they cant blame you for not paying it. Its too bad that its become worthless, but its irreversible and they have to deal with the new situation. Trying to make laws for it is their current way of dealing with it and it probably won't work.

I think that stopping people from sharing music is like forcing people to burn their newspapers after reading them to make sure everyone pays for reading it: again, its unfair to newspapers if you can read all of what they write without ever paying for your copy because someone handed you theirs, but they cant expect you to pay for a new copy if you can get one for free. Its unfair to them, but that's their problem, not yours. Trying to make laws to force you to burn your papers or throw them away or make them otherwise inaccessible to whoever hasn't paid for it would be a normal reaction on their part if they thought they were losing a lot of money over paper sharing, but it would never work. Again, that analogy has a slight bias for your view since individual newspaper copies have to be printed.

Music is no longer defined by the CD its on that you have to buy, music is now an easy to reproduce data file. The entertainment industries rely on the first definition of music and movies to work, and that is their downfall. Web-based services like Itunes are probably the future of entertainment, since what they essentially do is provide a more fair, and better service (larger selection all under the same service, always available regardless of whether or not someone out there is seeding it) than pirates do , but make you pay for it. They essentially joined the pirates by competing with them, and that's probably what the industry as a whole should head for.

Maybe if you had the ability to produce anything of value you'd think differently.  

har youre such a nice guy dom also selling art is my current source of income whoops

Maybe if you had the ability to produce anything of value you'd think differently.  

Hey dom why don't you go screw off. Frankie's pro-piracy argument was dumb but it's irritating you'd say that to him when I'm pretty sure he's a good graphics guy and I've never seen you do anything creative. What does whether you are creative or not have to do with copyright laws, anyway?

I mean you say that an artist spends all this money to work on a project and then charges money for it once it's completed as if this is at all the way people accept it is in the world. Everyone knows that musicians get a tiny fraction of album sales, for example, with most of the money going into the record companies. Also, bands with record contracts don't just pay thousands out of their own funds to get albums made, record companies do this.

I mean if we were just talking about independent artists or filmmakers or whatever and whatever then maybe you've got a point there but then again maybe not because I've never really considered intellectual property being bullshit until a few moments ago. I try to apply it to anything I have made or that I might make and I don't think I'd ever expect people to pay for music I made or something else.

I don't see how the house analogy doesn't apply, even your own argument works with it. The only bias the analogy has works in your favor: individual houses have to be built while one music track can be sold over and over again, so it would be a bigger loss to the house builders than to people in the music industry.

it doesn't apply because it's not about intellectual property. you can clone a house design all you like, because your basic suburban house design isn't copyrightable, you're the one putting up the funds for building materials. this is in stark contrast to waiting for someone to finish something and then just distributing what they made.

Your reply to my argument is pretty much "But its unfair, people work on shit and spend time and ressources and they need compensation". I agree! I said that the situation is unfair to artists, but I don't think its wrong for the potential consumer to get the free version if its easy to obtain. Its unrealistic to expect people to choose to buy music en masse if the free version is just as easy to get if not easier, its like expecting people to send money to charities: it can happen but you sure as hell cant count on that. The music and movie industries have to change their approach entirely or are condemned to wither and die as torrents and shit become even more mainstream and easy.

unrealistic is not the same as right. the current music model is flawed and definitely not sustainable, but that doesn't mean you have a right to put up a torrent of britneys latest album. and the industry IS moving forward, albeit slowly - i can listen to fully licensed music free on spotify right now.

The fact copying music is easy and accessible has made music as files essentially "worthless". Just like any image you find on the internet and can just save on your hard drive is "worthless". What still has a worth however is the intellectual property itself: while the music file is worthless by itself, the rights to use it in a movie or in some other commercial manner still has a high value.
Same goes for any image file you find on the web: You would probably pay the image's author if you were to use the file in a commercial job like a website layout, but you would never pay him to just stick it on your hard drive to look at it or as a desktop background, right? That analogy works pretty well because it establishes the difference between copying an image file on your computer, and the theft of the author's intellectual property. The music industry is trying to convince you that copying a file is stealing IP, and its not. Claiming you made it, selling it or using that song in your own movie is. They put a price tag on something that current technology has made "worthless", they cant blame you for not paying it. Its too bad that its become worthless, but its irreversible and they have to deal with the new situation. Trying to make laws for it is their current way of dealing with it and it probably won't work.

the analogies that the music industry use to combat piracy, however incorrect, do not make the act of copyright infringement acceptable. (im fully aware that actually downloading copyrighted media isn't illegal in itself - it's sharing that is illegal. although in the age of torrents the two are blurred. and BTW: ive never argued against actually downloading for this reason. my argument is purely against copyright infringement - illegal distribution. which is what the pirate bay do.)

har youre such a nice guy dom also selling art is my current source of income whoops

well im sure glad you can just sit back and accept piracy as something that is fine and dandy like that. i feel that most people would have a bit more backbone in this matter, especially if it was their means of living.

Hey dom why don't you go screw off. Frankie's pro-piracy argument was dumb but it's irritating you'd say that to him when I'm pretty sure he's a good graphics guy and I've never seen you do anything creative. What does whether you are creative or not have to do with copyright laws, anyway?

because being creative is a prerequisite to creating something copyrightable.

I mean you say that an artist spends all this money to work on a project and then charges money for it once it's completed as if this is at all the way people accept it is in the world. Everyone knows that musicians get a tiny fraction of album sales, for example, with most of the money going into the record companies. Also, bands with record contracts don't just pay thousands out of their own funds to get albums made, record companies do this.

I mean if we were just talking about independent artists or filmmakers or whatever and whatever then maybe you've got a point there

it wasn't meant to be taken that literally dude. yes in this climate a lot of artists don't actually do that. but it was simplified. and still applies to a lot of media creation. your point really has no bearing on the discussion at all.

but then again maybe not because I've never really considered intellectual property being bullshit until a few moments ago. I try to apply it to anything I have made or that I might make and I don't think I'd ever expect people to pay for music I made or something else.

if you think intellectual property is bullshit you're an idiot, sorry. copyright law and the attitudes of corporations might be flawed in ways but the concept of intellectual property is very important.

and yes if you want you can give what you make away for free - and that is commendable - i release most of my work under a creative commons license. but that doesn't mean someone else should have the right to charge whatever they want for something they made, and they should have the right to not have their work illegally distributed without their consent.

because being creative is a prerequisite to creating something copyrightable.

I meant what does it have to do with you being able to have an opinion on copyright laws. I don't think it has anything much to do with that.

it wasn't meant to be taken that literally dude. yes in this climate a lot of artists don't actually do that. but it was simplified. and still applies to a lot of media creation. your point really has no bearing on the discussion at all.

I'm not necessarily arguing for piracy here, I'm just pointing out that your argument in that post isn't really relevant to most of the entertainment industry so you can't use the whole stealing money out of artists pockets thing as your cornerstone.

if you think intellectual property is bullshit you're an idiot, sorry. copyright law and the attitudes of corporations might be flawed in ways but the concept of intellectual property is very important.

I just said I was considering it, you unpleasant motherfucker.

I'm not necessarily arguing for piracy here, I'm just pointing out that your argument in that post isn't really relevant to most of the entertainment industry so you can't use the whole stealing money out of artists pockets thing as your cornerstone.

it's entirely relevant because someone has copyright on the material and someones copyright is being infringed.

I just said I was considering it, you unpleasant motherfucker.

and you shouldn't even consider it