Re: illegal file sharing (what crime?)

theodoredice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 Jul, 09:27, "Norman Wells" <nor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
theodored...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 25 Jul, 16:51, "Norman Wells" <nor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
theodored...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I trust you are not suggesting all file sharers are chavs.

What else do you call people who break the law to acquire things
for nothing that others have spent time, money and effort to
create, just because they know how to do it? What else do you call
people who also think it's perfectly justified?

I watch commercial channels on TV and I can assure you I don't buy
all the products they advertise. What if I didn't buy any?

Then you wouldn't get to use them. That's the deal you see.

No it isn't. There is no guarantee someone will buy any of the
products. Many will, some won't. Besides, I bet you skip adverts like
the rest of us.

So what? It isn't illegal to do so, and advertising has always worked on the principle that some will see and some who do will buy. Music has never been equivalent except perhaps by being broadcast. If you hear it and like it, the deal is, you buy it, not steal it.


Plenty of people spend time and money and create things for free -
music and software for a start.

If they're prepared to give it away, that's fine. If not, why
shouldn't you pay for it if you want it? It's what money is for.

That's what is happening now.

No it's not what's happening now. Most music is offered on the basis that if you want it, you pay for it.


You've got it in your head that everyone
who downloads never buy original DVDs or music.

The deal is not, and never has been, download whatever you want, and we'll trust you to buy something else later. You want it, you pay for it.


I just happen to not value much of what I see. I see no point in
waiting to watch those I do value for free anyway after a year or two
once it's shown on TV.

Then why do you expend time and energy downloading and then watching what you know is going to be rubbish. It's just not coherent.


In case you're interested I'm a computer programmer, who has had
some of my own software pirated in the past. I don't bleat on
about how hard done by I am like the pathetic music and movie
industry though.

So, just because you don't bleat on about it, you think it's
perfectly OK for anyone to copy anything for free?

No, but I accept nothing can or will ever be done about it. As long
as the people doing it are not reselling it (thats a whole
different ball game) I don't have much of a problem with it.

So, as long as you think the risk of being caught doing something
illegal is small enough, you'll continue doing it. Just the same
mentality as those who strip lead from church roofs, isn't it?

No it isn't. A church has to pay to replace the roof. What has the
movie or record industry lost from me? *** all because I wouldn't
have bought it anyway.

Then you're not entitled to have it.

Electronic copyright "theft" is a completely different situation.
You're comparing apples with oranges and trying to be all moral about
it, church roofs FFS.

No, I'm not. Electronic copyright theft is no different from any other copyright theft. It's theft, and it deprives the originator of a just reward for his creative efforts. You do it, like a dog licks his balls, because you can.


Providing enough people do pay for the product it isn't a problem.
If enough aren't, chances are the product is rubbish anyway, they
should work harder.

More of the same chav attitude, I'm afraid. As long as other people
are paying, it's OK for you to get it for free. Do you take the same
attitude with regard to train journeys perhaps? The train's running
anyway, so why should you buy a ticket?

Strange morality.

Has nothing to do with morality. I'm not depriving anybody of
anything. It costs them nothing for me to obtain a copy and because
I wouldn't have bought it anyway they are not even losing a sale.
You might not like the sound of that, but it's true. They are not
losing a thing, it's not like me stealing a pair of shoes from a
shop.

The fact that you want to listen to it means that you have a desire
for the product. And whatever people desire, they will pay for if
they can't get it any other way. I don't believe you'd never buy any
music if it wasn't available for free. Most people would buy music
in those circumstances anyway, even if you're the exception. History
proves it.

Music is like any other art, there will always be people willing to
make it for their enjoyment and give it away free. The music
"industry" is not needed anymore to distribute it.

Fine. I have no problem with you downloading anything anyone is willing to give you for free. But there's no reason why you should assume that you have a right to download anything that people want you to pay for. Musicians have a right to earn a living from their art, and to do it in a way they they decide is best for them. If that means charging for their output, it's not for you to decide otherwise.

The music and movie industry need to change thats all.
Musical artists can still make music and distribute it for free,
only charging for commercial use (tv/film etc) and make the serious
money for live gigs. There was music before a music industry and
there will be plenty when they've gone.

But it was crap.

Really? So all free music is crap? Just like all free software?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. What I said was that music was crap before the music industry existed.

From what you say, it's becoming crap again.

Could there be a connection here? Could it just be that the music
industry, which you are helping to destroy, actually ensures quality?

Have you heard the charts over the last few years?

If the music there is crap, it may just be because the industry is being destroyed by freeloaders like you. That's my point.

Maybe the days of multi million dollar musicians has gone. So what?
I've heard better by amatuers at my local pub anyway.

Then why do you spend any time and effort at all in downloading
files and listening to them?

Because the market hasn't yet moved fully in the direction I see it
going. Certainly with music anyway.

Well, that doesn't answer the question, does it?

And what do you do at your local pub? Stand outside listening
through the window, or actually go in and buy the drinks that pay
for the musicians?

Yes I buy a drink and enjoy the music. If I hear it and think it's
crap I go elsewhere.

Oh good. You have some morality then.

Why doesn't the same apply to music on the net?


Musicians should get paid that way, not by over inflated CD prices.

No-one forces you to buy. If the prices are too high, the music industry will reduce them to increase sales and maximise their profits, but it's not for you to decide that you should have their products for free, and therefore steal them.

Music will be free, the performance won't be. Simple and the only way
it'll have to go eventually.

And quality music will die through lack of funding and re-investment.

And the movie industry can stop paying actors tens of millions of
dollars per film for a start. Pay them a sensible amount and give
them a royalty.

What will the royalty get paid out of if everyone just downloads the
film for free?

There will always be people wanting a proper offical copy of their
favourite movies. DVD sales have actually increased haven't they?

It's amazing how many films are coming out and making a huge profit
despite all this terrible downoading. 12,000 people are downloading
The Dark Knight right now off one website alone. Reckon that film
isn't going to still make hundreds of millions?

I hope it does. Willing customers paying willing production companies a price they are prepared to pay for their product is a recipe for successful commerce and the continuation of supply. It's freeloaders like you who threaten it.

.

Loading