So what you guys are telling me is that piracy is actually a GOOD thing?
No one is telling you what to think, read and decide for yourself. Piracy definately has a lot of benefits and often is a victimless crime.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Did you buy your last car with cash or on a finance plan?
Torrents over HTTP
- Thread starter Tomo3000
- Start date
No one is telling you what to think, read and decide for yourself. Piracy definately has a lot of benefits and often is a victimless crime.
Lazy
Senior Member
So what you guys are telling me is that piracy is actually a GOOD thing?
I answered your question. I didn't in any way refer to anything as either good or bad. In these terms, good is only good when compared to bad, and bad is only bad when compared to good. So if the conclusion is that market share = bad, then I guess it's bad. If market share is good then I guess it's good. It really depends on your point of view and how far you are willing to look.
It's really what happens as a result of the market share that needs to be evaluated, and, more importantly worth considering that a new entrant into the market will most probably take market share (and accept it) in any way they can.
Which one of these have you heard of?
Mungiu, Kieslowski, Bruckheimer, Spielberg?
The former 2 are scarcely pirated, the latter two are very popular on certain torretz.
Lazy
Senior Member
Mkay, I think.
So a new actor comes onto the scene and makes a movie that is pirated horribly. Do people still watch the movie even though they didn't pay for it? Yes.
Will people probably watch movies [in future] simply because he is in it?
Most probably.
Did he [the actor] benefit from it?
Sure he did. He is famous now.
Did the studio benefit from it?
Maybe not yet. (but they have a vested interest in his future)
Does his popularity hand the studio's [that can hire him] a tool to use to promote their movies?
Most certainly.
Does that mean he should expect people to attend movies simply because he is in them and because it is crap?
No. BUT, if the movie is good enough people WILL go watch it, while some others will choose to pirate it and the cycle begins again.
I'm trying to illustrate that in [almost] every situation there is a winner and a loser. Assuming that you, the person who pirates/buys the movie, is the winner/loser is a wrong assumption.
Darwin was right in more ways than he knew, when he said that it was not the strongest that would survive, but rather the ones that are most adaptable.
Lazy
Senior Member
I can see your point but it's merely speculation. It relies on too many "ifs".
From what I understand, movie studios are there to make money. They make a film and expect it to sell. They don't expect the film to get pirated and in turn cause their next film to do better.
For this very reason, pirating movies/games/software will never be "ok", because nobody likes it when someone uses their product and they don't see anything for it, whether it ends up being good for them in the long run or not - it is impossible to predict something like that.
From what I understand, movie studios are there to make money. They make a film and expect it to sell. They don't expect the film to get pirated and in turn cause their next film to do better.
For this very reason, pirating movies/games/software will never be "ok", because nobody likes it when someone uses their product and they don't see anything for it, whether it ends up being good for them in the long run or not - it is impossible to predict something like that.
Wrong, they are torrented because they can
I am pretty sure good movies are pirated more than bad movies.
"Good" is of course relative.
Lazy
Senior Member
Either way, it makes no difference as the people who will end up watching it will each fall into their [own] cycle in the whole process. Some of them will go watch something else in the cinema and some of the people who went to the cinema this time might pirate next time.
Think about it, how is downloading an mp3 different to listening to the endless repeats of the same songs on the radio? By the time the song is not top 40 anymore, you're sure to be tired of it in any case...
Well, by downloading the MP3 you've already made the decision to not buy the song. Whether you're going to be tired of the song within 2 weeks or not is a matter of opinion. If you don't like the song you'd change the station or listen to a CD full of pirated songs instead.
Regardless, if you were not able to download the MP3 and you liked it, you would have bought it. By downloading it that sale is lost.
Please, no more "the sale isn't lost cos I wouldn't have bought it anyhow" arguments - that is not what this is about.
Well thats what you get for acting like a prostate.
Im bored. Lets ban the photocopier!
Like an ass.Lazy
Senior Member
Ok, so here I am, I own 2 iPhones which is supposedly giving me access to the ability to buy the single which I like. This appeals to me as consumer, because I most often find that when I buy a CD, there is at most 1 or 2 songs which appeal to me. Most of the time I feel ripped off, because the rest of the CD seems to 'fill the disc'.
So, by nature, my iPhone want MP3's. I can't buy MP3's on the iTunes store (which would be most conventient based on the technology I've already paid an arm and a leg for) but Apple seems to feel differently about it.
But wait, I could buy the MP3 at a local online retailer, or I can buy it from an international retailer which also happens to be cheaper than the local ones. Sadly even that is considered wrong, because that is frowned apon too.
[Maybe not by you specifically though]
So that leaves me to buy the single. Guess what, the single never comes in a nice little compact form. No sir, I have to buy [yet another] CD which contains 10 versions of the same song. So again, I end up paying for everything except for that which I wanted in the first place.
This leads me to my question, if I like a song, SHOULD I be forced to buy the entire CD? If not, what happens if nobody buys the CD and everyone just buys the single? Do you think the artist would not find that to be a [new] problem?
Regardless if you like the argument or not, me making up my mind NOT to buy the CD still means nothing whether I download it or not, because if I never intended to buy the CD or MP3 and was quite happy just to listen to the radio, it has exactly the same nett result. The only real thing is, now I am aware of the artist.
But who is to say I won't go to a concert when the artist comes for a show? Or, before/after the song plays on the radio there might be an add that informs me of something I can actually spend my money on, which I then might go out and buy. [or I might not].
So, by nature, my iPhone
But wait, I could buy the MP3 at a local online retailer, or I can buy it from an international retailer which also happens to be cheaper than the local ones. Sadly even that is considered wrong, because that is frowned apon too.
[Maybe not by you specifically though]
So that leaves me to buy the single. Guess what, the single never comes in a nice little compact form. No sir, I have to buy [yet another] CD which contains 10 versions of the same song. So again, I end up paying for everything except for that which I wanted in the first place.
This leads me to my question, if I like a song, SHOULD I be forced to buy the entire CD? If not, what happens if nobody buys the CD and everyone just buys the single? Do you think the artist would not find that to be a [new] problem?
Regardless if you like the argument or not, me making up my mind NOT to buy the CD still means nothing whether I download it or not, because if I never intended to buy the CD or MP3 and was quite happy just to listen to the radio, it has exactly the same nett result. The only real thing is, now I am aware of the artist.
But who is to say I won't go to a concert when the artist comes for a show? Or, before/after the song plays on the radio there might be an add that informs me of something I can actually spend my money on, which I then might go out and buy. [or I might not].
Is it? Or would I have recorded it off the radio, or copied a friend's CD, or gone without it altogether? Piracy has absolutely no impact on sales. How is downloading a TV show or movie any different from recording it on tape / DVD / DStv decoder? Oh noes the piracies are everywhere!
People who feel strongly enough about something to buy it, already are. I have have a collection of pirated stuff in addition to my legitimately bought stuff. If you deleted everything on all my computer, guess how many new DVD's or CD's I would go out and buy. I'll give you a hint. The answer is < 1. Why, because I already own the stuff I care to own.
I don't understand your argument. You're saying that by not buying something, it doesn't impact the sales of said item?
Like I said, if it comes down to not being able to download the MP3 (or copy it from a friend, think a bit about the other options also) and you want it, you would buy it. If you don't like it, then you wouldn't buy it, or even download it, because why would you?
Would you like to try again?
Why should I try again? You're the one making the dumb argument. Do you buy every song you like off the radio? You PIRATE! You're not buying everything. In fact right at this moment you're affecting the sales of TV's, DVD players, computers etc by not buying them.
It is absolute nonsense that you would buy something you like just because you can't download it. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.