Torrents over HTTP

[PeterCH]

why would lower pricing affect sales?
a pirate's mind works like this:
1) i can get $$$ software/movie/music for free.
2) i am not getting caught or prosecuted.
3) i can brag about it on mybroadband and be a hero for showing dem greedy execs

I detect jealousy or some other personal conflict in your post.

i fail to see how changing number 1 to a single $ will change the outcome of anything else.

there's a piece of open road in nelspruit where i like to go drive at 200km/h.
it's clearly illegal.


will i start driving slower when they raise the speed limit to 180km/h? no.
i'll sure as heck drive slower when i am being policed.

(for the sake of this analogy let's not start debating the merits of road safety. needless to say if i were to do that speed on a public road it would be with my safety equipment, medical team and clearance certificates).

Policing is wrong because it hampers legitimate users and is bound to lead to abuse. In effect policing would be monitoring and citing 'abusers' and that's wrong for many reasons, secondly the policing could hamper the spread of legitimate works after all who will police the policemen who themselves have reason to block legitimate channels. The MPAA would love to block internet downloads and have only their channel be the way a show can spread globally. Most indie producers and poor countries would not be able to compete, they'd have to license their stuff via Hollywood and pay royalties to the MAFIAA and we'd get less choice. The MAFIAA has a vested interest in preventing me from watching non-MAFIAA programming too, in the hope I'll buy their garbage. I do occasionally buy their junk but most of my DVD purchases are not MAFIAA rubbish. If they could, they'd block that too.

Hence policing is not in the public common good. Policing road safety is in the public's best interest. Policing potential copyright infringement will disadvantage the public more, who will have nothing in return but less choice and less freedom, not to mention cost as the MAFIAA will charge for this policing and with less competition they'll keep prices high.

 

[PeterCH]

It means they will take down the files. They gonna be very bussy and you will prolly not find what your looking for half the time as media companies will be sure to report their copyright content for take down.

It is DMCA. That protects the host from any lawsuits.

 

[PeterCH]

So what was your argument about then? You're admitting to being able to buying DVDs - this thread is about copyright infringement.

Uncensored internet is what allows the spread of knowledge of good programing.
Secondly, many people download torrentz of stuff before they buy and finally the same MAFIAA would love to prevent me buying a foreign DVD.

Also, congratulations on being an intellectual!

I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Tpex]

Well Put PeterCH

 

[PeterCH]

it's not stealing or cheating! "If anything, it's free exposure and advertising."

ps: it actually is stealing.

steal |stēl|
verb ( past stole |stōl|; past part. stolen |ˈstōlən|)
1 [ trans. ] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it : thieves stole her bicycle | [ intrans. ] she was found guilty of stealing from her employers | [as adj. ] ( stolen) stolen goods.
• dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own : accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying.
[/steal]

So when person X downloads 24 he is pretending the show is HIS creation?

Errr.... No.

You're confused.

 

[Tpex]

it's not stealing or cheating! "If anything, it's free exposure and advertising."

ps: it actually is stealing.

Where the Hell do you find that piracy is taking another ideas as your own?
sharing/copying is nothing of the sort, people who pirate know what the are doing, they don't go and put hteir name on it and advertise it as their own

 

[PeterCH]

Legally speaking (and logically) making a copy is not stealing. That's copyright infringement or 'making a copy without permission'. To steal, you need to go to the Warner Brothers' vault and take a the original print of the movie - that would be stealing. Now WB does not have a print and they are disadvantaged. Stealing is also robbing Musica and taking a DVD.

Making a copy and attributing the program(mme) to yourself is criminal copyright infringement and may also include various patent violations. Selling a fake copy as legitimate is criminal copyright infringement and civil.

People use 'steal ideas' colloquially but it is not so legally. To really steal an idea, I'd have to listen to what you told me then knock you on the head and give you amnesia and also destroy all of your records of that idea. Then it would be theft - you would not have this idea anymore.

 

[Tpex]

If people started sharing their cars, like you let everybody in your street use your car, and this happend in a small scale in other places, then the car makers would get pissed off becuse some people would not be buying cars, so they would try and pass a law to stop that, but that would be BS becuase you brought the car, you own it, and you have the right to do with it what you want

 

[tco21]

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[PeterCH]

your psychoanalysis radar must be on the blink mister freud.
i happily pay for my games, movies and uncapped (yet unabused) internet access.

LOL, deny all you want.

tl;dr
probably some tirade about how the publishers have it in for your FREEDOOOOOOOOOM

Which is a major issue. I don't want the MAFIAA interfering in my life. I don't interfere in theirs. Net neutrality is an issue here too.

empty road. what best interests?

We're looking at the fundamental difference in policing something for the good of the people and policing something for the good of a select few where this hampers on other peoples' freedoms. If MAFIAA wants to lock down their stuff - I wouldn't care, let them do it. But don't mess with the internet.

 

[PeterCH]

but then this and what that plus so on etcetera henceforth because tpex doesn't know how to argue coherently abloobloowaaaaah

He makes sense. You're the one with poor arguments.

 

[dept of]

I don't understand what you lot are arguing about.

Copyright infringement is wrong. Stop doing it.

 

[TMoose]

I don't understand what you lot are arguing about.

Copyright infringement is wrong. Stop doing it.

It is a victimless crime. It affects nothing. If I like a movie enough I'll go buy the DVD. If I don't I won't. It's really that simple.

Stopping somebody from downloading a file in no way guarantees that they would buy it. They wouldn't. It does however guarantee decreased exposure via word of mouth for whatever is being shared.

The only thing stopping more people from buying original software / games / movies is pricing and the quality of the content. I firmly believe that if you could make it impossible to pirate anything tomorrow it wouldn't affect sales at all. If the newest version of Windows was unpirateable for example people would stay on the old version or switch to a different OS. They'd lose market share.

 

[Lazy]

I find the word copyright interesting. It blends 'Copy' and 'Right'. So, by it's own blend, does it refer to the right to copy or to copy right?

My post is rubbish and I intended it to be rubbish. Because to assume that torrents = pirates would be to assume wrong. There are lots of perfectly legal things you can download as a torrent...

 

[dept of]

If the newest version of Windows was unpirateable for example people would stay on the old version or switch to a different OS. They'd lose market share.

Seriously? What's the point of having market share if you're not benefiting from it?

I don't understand your logic.

 

[dept of]

I find the word copyright interesting. It blends 'Copy' and 'Right'. So, by it's own blend, does it refer to the right to copy or to copy right?

My post is rubbish and I intended it to be rubbish. Because to assume that torrents = pirates would be to assume wrong. There are lots of perfectly legal things you can download as a torrent...

Yes, of course. But we all know what happens behind the scenes. To hide behind that argument is to be, in effect, Lazy.

 

[PeterCH]

Seriously? What's the point of having market share if you're not benefiting from it?

I don't understand your logic.

Ask Bill Gates.

Microsoft sold over 20 million legal copies of Windows Vista globally in the first month of launch while in China, only 244 licenses of Windows Vista were sold officially in the same period. Most preferred to buy the $1 pirated Vista DVDs.

Contrary to what you may think - Microsoft isn't losing sleep over the rampant software piracy in China but it's the other way round.

The "something is better than nothing" strategy of Bill Gates is that when people in China are pirating so much software, let them pirate software developed by Microsoft -that increases the overall number of Microsoft software users and some of them may eventually convert into paying customers.

This surprising "pro-piracy" move in China has proved beneficial for Microsoft in the long run and Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. Fortune Magazine writes:

Gates argued at the time that while it was terrible that people in China pirated so much software, if they were going to pirate anybody's software he'd certainly prefer it be Microsoft's.

Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs.

Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html

People get familiar with it. Later they only want it because the competitors are so locked down, few people have exposure to it.

The installed app's base becomes bigger, this benefits you directly - if you make other software and indirectly - the demand for your OS increases as more applications are written for it - so inevitable you end up selling more (eg with new PCs, in shops etc).

 

[PeterCH]

I don't understand what you lot are arguing about.

Copyright infringement is wrong. Stop doing it.

Well they will stop now that YOU'VE told them.

 

[Lazy]

Seriously? What's the point of having market share if you're not benefiting from it?

Who said Microsoft would NOT benefit from it? So, if you have a copy of windows it really means that you will probably run other versions of their software, such as Word or Excel. That means there would be a possiblity that you might actually buy some other software from them either now or sometime in future. Why? Because you've chosen the microsoft path instead of the ubtuntu/linux/OS X path. So, while there might not have been an exchange of money [yet], you are likely to become skilled in Windows and work in an environment where the company you work for need to cater for windows simply because of your skill level (as one example).

Also, every PC that runs a legally-challenged version of Windows means it's one less PC that runs a competitor's product. It's a well known fact that there are several competitors to windows and it's also a well known fact that Windows dominates the market [share]. So, if we conclude that it has always been possible to pirate windows are you then going to conclude that piracy did not play a part in handing microsoft market share?

 

[dept of]

So what you guys are telling me is that piracy is actually a GOOD thing?