Online piracy

Well obviously not morally but they were the law. Let's move to a more current law for e.g. Possession of dagga. Should we really be giving people criminal records and R50/R100 fines for this?

Again that is a moral issue... whether you regard it as "right" or "wrong" is up to you. Personally I think they should receive fines and a criminal record, but that is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

All I am saying is don't blindly accept the law just because it is the law and the justice system is all knowing and all powerful and never makes mistakes and therefore something that is illegal cannot possibly be "right". That is just plain idiotic.

You may quote current laws all you want, another good example for debate would be abortion laws in South Africa I am sure many forumites would find the way our abortion laws are structured morally reprehensible, while others would agree with the laws stating the rights of the pregnant woman... all I am saying is the South African justice system has been "wrong" before in the eyes of the world's general populous and it will be "wrong" again. No institute produced by man can possibly be infallible.

While copyright infringement is illegal that doesn't mean it is "wrong" nor that it is "right", that is up to the conscience of the individual as you have the right to your opinion (isn't freedom and individuality a wonderful thing).
 
Last edited:
Again that is a moral issue... whether you regard it as "right" or "wrong" is up to you. Personally I think they should receive fines and a criminal record, but that is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

All I am saying is don't blindly accept the law just because it is the law and the justice system is all knowing and all powerful and never makes mistakes and therefore something that is illegal cannot possibly be "right". That is just plain idiotic.

You may quote current laws all you want, another good example for debate would be abortion laws in South Africa I am sure many forumites would find the way our abortion laws are structured morally reprehensible, while others would agree with the laws stating the rights of the pregnant woman... all I am saying is the South African justice system has been "wrong" before in the eyes of the world's general populous and it will be "wrong" again. No institute produced by man can possibly be infallible.

While copyright infringement is illegal that doesn't mean it is "wrong" nor that it is "right", that is up to the conscience of the individual as you have the right to your opinion (isn't freedom and individuality a wonderful thing).

This is where you are wrong. Abortion, possession of drugs etc are laws specifically to protect oneself against rash/uneducated/juvenile decisions against your own person. Copyright theft is to protect a third party from injury. This is important because the law must be seen to protect a 3rd party in order for them to feel redress and not attempt to take on some form of redress themselves escalating the possible consequences. You surely would want some aggrieved software writer to come to your house etc if he tracked you down as a copyright infringer/pirate?
 
This is where you are wrong. Abortion, possession of drugs etc are laws specifically to protect oneself against rash/uneducated/juvenile decisions against your own person. Copyright theft is to protect a third party from injury. This is important because the law must be seen to protect a 3rd party in order for them to feel redress and not attempt to take on some form of redress themselves escalating the possible consequences. You surely would want some aggrieved software writer to come to your house etc if he tracked you down as a copyright infringer/pirate?

There you using that "theft" word again, there is no such thing as "Copyright theft". *sigh* In terms of the law of South Africa it isn't theft, it is "copyright infringement", seriously what is the point of discussing this if you guys aren't going to actually take the time to read the acts associated with this?

I refuse to take part in discussions about the legal status of copyright infringement with people who don't read the appropriate acts before commenting.

OK...so you don't regard the unborn foetus as a "third party" that the doctor has an obligation to protect from injury or death that may result from the decision of the woman that is carrying it? (keeping in mind that by South African law the consent of the biological father is not required in order to perform an abortion)... no worries once again that is your opinion. At this point it all boils down to whether or not you regard the foetus as "human" and hence deserving of human rights the appropriate one here of course being the right to life. If you don't regard the foetus as human or deserving of rights then I would agree, once again it all boils down to a matter of opinion as to whether it is"right" or "wrong" we are going in circles.

There is more than one way to look at a problem abortion is a moral minefield, as is drugs. This discussion is becoming pointless and irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I Can "Online"

I download anything and everything i can.

It's a great feeling knowing i have so much s**t that I don’t know what to do with it. when my drive fills up, i delete the oldest and continue.
now and then friends and family will get movies/games/apps/music, I don’t mind sharing.
I remember the old days when "Twighlight" distributed their warez that was great fun. that started it off for me.

I average 14Gig an evening, half the stuff I download I never watch/play or use. I have not purchased a game/movie/music CD in over 10 years.
I spend over 6 grand on a video card, 20 grand on my system.
yet i don’t buy software. Why ?
because I can :)

funny thing is I have purchased 3 or 4 apps. the main one being alchol120 so that I can mount my warez ISO's without issues. :)
I know some things will change, for now I leach. I’m addicted . I’m not ashamed as I don’t have a conscience and I don’t care.
and I'm honest :) oh how I wish I had an 8meg line , id need to purchase another 8TB of hard drive space.

Hate me love me, I'm the Yan in your Yin, the dark in the light, the chaos in the calm, like life and existence, everything needs an opposite to keep the balance.

.....> end of my say :) Flame me now……
 
So nothing physical was taken from anyone, and that makes it right?

So by the same argument we can argue that there is nothing wrong with hacking, after all I did not take something physical from someone, I just scrambled a few records, inconvenienced a few, that's all.

I like this idea, I can stalk and peep at people through windows, install hidden cameras in locker rooms, I did not take anything physical from someone, how can it be wrong???

I really, really like this idea!

The law does not have the last say! We will decide by our own crooked and deranged ways and standards what is right and wrong.

The artist/record label/software developer says that these are the rules we release this work under, and if you do not agree, then leave it.

And if I still have not made myself clear, yes you are a thief Mr. Pirate.
 
Intellectual property.

True, the owner of the copyright may not have lost something physical, but by downloading that content without paying for it, you have robbed the artist of an opportunity to trade.

WRONG AGAIN. You have robbed him of a POTENTIAL opportunity to trade. You can't say with any certainty that the product would have been purchased in the first place. The recording and movie industry shills on the other hand make every copy a lost sale and not a potential lost sale. If I a kid with no money downloads R1000 worth of CDs, you will say that is a lost sale, but he had no money in the first place, he would never have bought the CDs. However, by downloading the music you, the pirate has popularised the music more - he has increased exposure to it. Perhaps one day, when he has money he will buy the CD instead of wasting time finding, downloading and burning it. Piracy = free marketing and advertising.
 
Isn't South Africa one of the top in the world for Pirating?

Having just returned from a trip to the UK, I can pretty much understand why to be honest. I took a walk in HMV and my jaw hit the floor. Not only was the selection of DVD's so massive that I wouldn't of been able to go through it in a month, But the prices were actually reasonable. When I sat back and worked out how much it would cost me to download it here in SA, I couldn't see the point as 9 times out of 10 it was cheaper to buy.

So why do South African's Pirate.. Because we get ripped off big time and our selection sucks!

You should go to a US store - US selections are way more massive than the lousy R2 PAL we get, unless you factor in R2 DVDs from each European country and Japan in that equation too. However, you won't find a physical store with all the R2 DVDs on the shelves from Albania to Turkey (with English subtitles/dub/voice over).
 
The truth is that all of the piracy advocates, read GaryVdh and his ilk, try to justify a position which they know is morally and legally wrong. Regardless of price, these people will still pirate it's just so much easier to download than it is to drive to the shop and buy. I'd happily bet they don't allow all and sundry into their swimming pools when they're not using them.

Just because something is wrong does not mean it can't be justified. Throughout the ages 'wrong', 'immoral' and 'unlawful' actions have been justified, and logically it is not fallacious to say that something is 'wrong' yet is justified. The bombing of Berlin to defeat Hitler led to the death of many children, yet it ended the war faster, so yes it was WRONG but it was justified.
 
So if somebody hacks into your bank account and transfers whatever money you have into their account it is not theft? You don't have the physical money so it should be just dandy? (read the same article as porchrat there)

What a load of nonsense. Money in a bank account is the same as physical money. There is no difference. If you were to clone the account and leave the original intact, it would not be stealing. If you transfer money out electronically, it's the same as physically removing it at gun-point from your till or safe or wallet.

We were on the legal definition thing a few posts back. Just because the law doesn't explicitely say that it is theft doesn't mean that it isn't. This may differ from person to person but do you honestly think that downloading music is legal?

The courts, at least in the US, have EXPLICITLY stated that it is not theft.
In fact this fight has been going on for hundreds of years and in each case the authorities have said it was not theft. It can't be theft because when you make a copy, you are not removing the original.

It can lead to loss of income through loss of sales. However, this is a POTENTIAL loss of income. You can't say that the product - at the given price - would have been purchased. Unless you can prove that, it is not loss of income.
 
That's not the real question. Legality can be debated, as has been shown here ad nauseum. The question really is: is it RIGHT? And that's really up to you. Legality is all about what you can prove. Whether something is morally right is up to the individual. Like I said before, there's always that one guy in prison for rape who maintains that 'she was asking for it'. In his mind, he did nothing wrong, but in accordance with the law, he's guilty of a crime.

I can tell you why I think piracy is wrong, and the guy who wrote the article gleefully told us why he doesn't care. As far as I'm concerned any activity that seeks to disenfranchise any individual in any way is morally reprehensible, whether it is deemed illegal or not.

First of all the aim of this activity is not to DISENFRANCHISE anyone. There is usually no intent to do that. In rape, that happens. Secondly, you are only potentially DISENFRANCHISING them. A rape victim is always disenfranchised. Thirdly, if the piracy leads to greater exposure you are not DISENFRANCHISING anyone. Finally, who is this DISENFRANCHISED victim you speak of? Society in the beginning gave creators of copyright works a limit of time - it was short - 7 years in the beginning, afterwards the intellectual property was transferred into the public domain. As is the copyright owners are more and more greedy and are extending the copyright. In fact in the US they now want "IN PERPETUITY MINUS 1 DAY" as the period of time they own the copyright because the US constitution outlaws PERPETUAL Copyrights. If we were to apply this ruling to everything we know - our culture, language, customs, scientific knowledge - you would be paying a license to speak English (or your mother tongue), your mom would not be able to cook without paying a license for each recipe and everything would be incredibly expensive - not to mention that we'd probably still be in bronze age as we've only advanced scientifically because we could copy each others ideas and BUILD ON what we have. This is as true in science, as it is in art and entertainment. Who is disenfranchising who, here?

Let's also not forget that the artists usually don't get the lion's share of the profits generated by the MPAA/RIAA/BSA. Is that moral?

Let's also not compare rape to a copying of some mp3s or avi's.
 
On a note related to the bus fare thing (yes I didn't let it drop... gotta love how slow January is) I found this article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...r-a-90p-oyster-card-bus-fare-to-cost-10000.do


Sorry, just thought you might find it as interesting as I did I didn't even know "fare evasion" existed.

Of course you get penalised if you board a bus without a ticket and you get caught.

The difference here is that there is a finite number of seats on the bus. If the freeloaders occupy all the seats, the paying customers can't get on and pay the bus fare - and the company loses money. Secondly, it costs money to convey a person. The bus is heavier and requires more fuel and suffers more wear and tear from being used. I just killed your comparison, please admit defeat once and for all.

Hypothetically, if I were to download a Britney Spears MP3 from some warez/mp3z site I would not be stopping a legitimate user from purchasing that song from iTunes or CNA. Secondly, I am not using the company's server and causing an expense, I am using a warez server and Sony BMG - owner of the song - does not spend a cent. You could argue expenses if you hack into iTunes and are able to download music for free - then Apple must pay traffic costs.
 
Last edited:
I think maybe you're missing my point. I'll be as plain as possible.

I don't think piracy is a very nice thing to do. You think piracy is a very nice thing to do.

Juice

I actually think piracy is not a very nice thing. Why? Because I think people should boycott all the rubbish out there and not buy it and not download it either. They should put the Britney Spears and the SONY-BMGs out of business for good. Most of their products are garbage.

I think we should declare all RISA/RIAA music illegal, all MPAA movies illegal and ban them. Producers of these products should be imprisoned for life and all assets confiscated. There, that would be ideal, I think. No more piracy = no more theft for those who cannot see that piracy is not the same as theft.
 
Socialism has failed numerous times as a system of government. China manages it work out of desperation largely by bullying and subjugating their population. What makes you think that digital socialism will fare any better?

Juice

No-one wants to not pay for a quality product. However, the current system is wrong. Instead of pressing CDs and charging R120+ per CD, they should charge for live concerts and merchandise but not for the music. Alternatively, make the music cheap - very cheap and convenient to buy and download. As is, the prices are too expensive. There are many artists capable of producing great art out of love and for minimal renumeration - so pure extreme money rewards are not a driver for great works of art. Most artists in the past were poor or lived average lives at best - they weren't the richest people out there. Secondly, even in socialist countries, art often flourished - TV shows, music, movies, cabarets, poetry, operas, books etc were of high caliber. Guys like Gorecki, Tarkovsky, Lem etc were and are some of the best auteurs around yet these guys were (are) poor and don't earn the paychecks of Steven King or James Cameron.

What we currently see is socialism in the form of free money going to content producers. And when their business model fails they want to sue or get government taxes and media levies. It's as if the buggy whip makers were to force the government to force taxes on all car users because we're driving cars and no longer using a horse and carriage like our ancestors did in the 19th century.
 
WTF, you just spammed the first half of the 8Th page.... :wtf:

Haaarr harrrrrr
 
So PeterCH this is a social protest? I'm a web application programmer who has worked at most of the largest IT companies in Southern Africa. I have seen countless downloads and swaps and quite frankly incredible greed in terms of the amount that gets downloaded. Very few people actually give a **** about the music producers, cost of music and any other bull**** excuse for pirating pandered on here. They download because they can and they will continue to download because they can. The simple point which nobody wants to address is that if I create something digital, IT BELONGS TO ME. I decide who can or cannot use it and if you break the rules for usage as laid out by me I can seek redress.
 
So PeterCH this is a social protest? I'm a web application programmer who has worked at most of the largest IT companies in Southern Africa. I have seen countless downloads and swaps and quite frankly incredible greed in terms of the amount that gets downloaded. Very few people actually give a **** about the music producers, cost of music and any other bull**** excuse for pirating pandered on here. They download because they can and they will continue to download because they can. The simple point which nobody wants to address is that if I create something digital, IT BELONGS TO ME. I decide who can or cannot use it and if you break the rules for usage as laid out by me I can seek redress.

so what exactly is your point?

If you don't want it pirated then make it widely available for a cheap price direct to the public with no restrictions. Otherwise, yes, it is going to be pirated.. just because it is there. If you don't want it pirated then don't put it on the internet. Even then, someone else is going to upload it and distribute it. That is a fact of life. Is it wrong or not? yes, no, maybe? Who cares? not me. Not the pirates. The only way to fight piracy is through price and distribution.

We don't give a **** about the content distributors, the middle men, the fat cats, the industry execs. They can rot in hell. They are worse pirates than us and far more greedy.... but pirates do care about the content creators. The movie producers, actors, singers and bands. We want them to be rewarded and we would rather reward them directly. With money if we can, with our money, and if that is not possible then with popularity.

Find a way to get the movies and music DIRECTLY to the public at a cheap price and the large part of the piracy will go away. It will never go away completely, but a lot of it will go away. People will always download, yes... that is a fact of life. They will always share and distribute. It has been happening for millions of years since Thug the first caveman invented a shovel (the next day he woke up and Brug next door had already copied his shovel and told ten other people how to make one).

I would guess that 90% of piracy exists because people want the stuff easily and directly at a cheap rate (or free). So the only way to provide them and make a profit is to give it to them how they want it at the cheapest rate or supported by advertising. Fortunately the Internet lends itself to that easy distribution model.

It is not a social protest, but a social revolution, a social phenomena... and the cat is out of the bag and will not go back. The internet has created a global network of consumers. The smart content producers will harness that demand and make a truckload of money out of it. The stupid content distributors will continue to fight their very consumers, and will eventually shrivel up and die. Simple economics.

I know a lot of pirates, including myself. But very few I know are not purchasers. We all have extensive DVD and music collections and continue to add to that all the time. We are not the enemy - we are the cash cow... just ask my credit card company.

The trick will be to turn the up and coming generation into online purchasers as well. I have said this before... but the company that comes up with a model where a user/downloader can buy a certain number of credits and then download as much as he wants and gets a lifetime license to that content at the same time. That man will be a billionaire.
 
A lot of wise words from PeterCH and Garyvdh. I agree on the purchasing thing. I have bought a lot of original content at ridiculous prices sometimes for no other reason than seeing it in the shop and thinking "wow, that was a good movie, let me get the DVD." Unfortunately I can't afford to buy everything I want but I still spread the word and who knows, maybe a friend of mine will buy a copy.:)
 
You should go to a US store - US selections are way more massive than the lousy R2 PAL we get, unless you factor in R2 DVDs from each European country and Japan in that equation too. However, you won't find a physical store with all the R2 DVDs on the shelves from Albania to Turkey (with English subtitles/dub/voice over).
I can only imagine! It seemed to me as well that you could buy things as soon as they were available as well. Not like here were we have to wait for DSTV to show the whole series first before we could even consider buying things. The consumer comes first over there, where here it just seems to me that everyone is out to make as much money as quick as possible.

Granted I wouldn't mind having as much money as quick as possible either, Its just that here they seem to have the mentality that if customers want something, charge them double, Instead of charging them half and selling three times as much making more money in the long run.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X