• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

ThePlayDrive said:
I never said it wasn't victim-less. I'm questioning the claim that it is. You say it is. Where is your proof? Where is your proof that people would have bought it legally had it not been available illegally?
Click to expand...
I believe that was included in the part of my post you quoted. Let me re-quote that for you:
In fact, in the case of the people who paid Megaupload for an increase in download speed, they did pay for the files.
Click to expand...
If the files had no value why did they pay to download them?


Joke I heard long ago:
A man in a bar strikes up a conversation with a good looking woman. After several hours and drinks he asks her, "Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?"
The woman laughs and says, "Of couse!"
The man then says, "How about $10?"
The woman slaps him and says, "What do you think I am?"
The man says, "We've already determined that, we're just discussing price!"
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Really? Do you have some kind of report to back this up? And also, do you have proof that people who 'steal' music, etc. would have bought the products if they weren't available to 'steal'?
Click to expand...
Ahh the old cop out of "I wouldn't have gotten it if I had to pay for it so it's not like there is any money lost" rationalization for stealing. Sickening.
 
MrVicchio said:
Ahh the old cop out of "I wouldn't have gotten it if I had to pay for it so it's not like there is any money lost" rationalization for stealing. Sickening.
Click to expand...
I asked you if you had proof to support your claim. This is not proof. Where is it?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I believe that was included in the part of my post you quoted. Let me re-quote that for you:
Click to expand...
How is paying a small fee for a higher level of access to megaupload proof that people would have paid for files legally if they were not available legally? People paying for Megaupload, at the most, shows that people know they can get more movies and television shows for their money. It doesn't show that they would pay full price for them if illegal downloading and streaming were not available.

If the files had no value why did they pay to download them?
Click to expand...
I never said the files didn't have any value. I questioned whether or not people would pay for them if they weren't available illegally. I discussed most of my point above, but the other problem with using paid megaupload accounts as proof is that it doesn't take into account what non-illegal things people acquired an account for.

Joke I heard long ago:
A man in a bar strikes up a conversation with a good looking woman. After several hours and drinks he asks her, "Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?"
The woman laughs and says, "Of couse!"
The man then says, "How about $10?"
The woman slaps him and says, "What do you think I am?"
The man says, "We've already determined that, we're just discussing price!"
Click to expand...
Ha! That's funny.
 
Your Star said:
And yes, even if you follow the law you have a lot to worry about these laws. This very website could be shutdown because of these laws. Someone who posts a video on youtube, and has music in the background could be put in jail for 5 years. Everyone should worry about these draconian laws, the government has no right to do what these laws propose.
Click to expand...

Total B.S. I care less if it passes. Like I said, it's redundancy. There is no need for redundancy but if it does pass, this site, or YouTube, Facebook, etc isn't going anywhere (because of the law).

You admit that you steal the work of others. I understand your concern. I don't share it.
 
Your Star said:
The real matter is though that the world has changed, you will never get rid of pirating, so the companies need to learn to live with it, and make money in this new market. There are ways, and the companies that adapt will survive, and the others wont. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

We will never get rid of shoplifting, rape, murder, etc either.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, it doesn't. Why would it? They aren't losing a dime.


Shoplifting and downloading copies of music are two completely different beasts. A proper comparison would be if someone could copy a handbag in a store infinitely and then share those copies for free. It seems like you don't really understand what illegal downloading is if you think it's comparable to shoplifting.
Click to expand...

It's theft. There is no need for me to continually repeat that.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If by "any of this" you mean the proposed digital IP protection laws you are incorrect. While I admit to piracy on an extremely small scale (long before the Internet) I haven't done it for decades. That doesn't mean I don't have worries and concerns about these proposed laws. What you're saying is the same as saying, "If you never speak out against Uncle Sam then you have no worries about the First Amendment" or a cop saying "If you didn't commit the crime then you have no worries about our taking your fingerprints and DNA". That's rubbish. SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA (at least what little I've been able to research) all infringe to some extent or other into what Internet users consider their Right to Privacy.
Click to expand...

I read up to here. There is no privacy right to steal.
 
Harshaw said:
http://www.serci.org/2004/waelbroeck.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing a study. Most people gasp at the prospect of evidence supported debate. In any case, the study is based on quite a few risky assumptions to come to its conclusion, a conclusion that is less than convincing:

Our cross-section regression confirms their fear: we find that music downloading could have caused a 10% reduction in CD sales worldwide in 2001.
Click to expand...
Could have? Hmm....

It also goes on to say:
Besides, there are reasons to believe that the music industry might actually benefit from digital distribution.
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
What makes you think that everyone who pirates wouldn't have paid if they couldn't get it by piracy? Where's YOUR proof?
Click to expand...
I never said that everyone who pirates wouldn't have paid. I asked for proof of people who have made claims.
 
Your Star said:
Just look at Valve, and steam, they are making record profits off of Steam, because of the good will the company has, and the ease of the service. People would rather get their games legally from Steam, because it's easier than getting them illegally.
Click to expand...

So true, entertainment and media corporations need to wise up to this new trend. This goes for movies, TV, video games, music, etc.

Oh and I forgot sports game broadcasts. I would totally pay for league pass broadband instead of getting illegal pirated streams if these ****ers didn't black out my Wizards home games because Comcast sportsnet has exclusive broadcasting rights :2mad:
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
It's theft. There is no need for me to continually repeat that.
Click to expand...
You're right, there isn't any reason for you to keep repeating that since that isn't the point of contention. When you figure out what it is and why illegal downloading and shoplifting are not analogous in the context of this discussion, get back to me.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Thank you for providing a study. Most people gasp at the prospect of evidence supported debate. In any case, the study is based on quite a few risky assumptions to come to its conclusion, a conclusion that is less than convincing:

Could have? Hmm....
Click to expand...

Considering the difficulty in extracting precise data, it's a reasonable estimation.

Here's an abstract of another:

Measuring the Effect of Online Music Piracy on Music Sales | Mendeley

Which says:

The results suggest that, for the group of users of peer-to- peer systems, piracy reduces the probability of buying music by 35% to 65%. Based on my estimates, back of the envelope calculations indicate that online music piracy may explain a drop in music sales of 7.8% to 14.5%. Using the number of internet users by country as a measure of users of P2P systems, the panel of aggregate data shows a larger impact of piracy on music sales.
Click to expand...

Now:

It also goes on to say:
Click to expand...

So? Wasn't the question.

I never said that everyone who pirates wouldn't have paid. I asked for proof of people who have made claims.
Click to expand...

Well, you asked that question of someone who didn't make that particular claim, so . . .

In any case, you did say:

ThePlayDrive said:
What is your point? Obviously you can't sell pirated copies because Rolexes can't be downloaded, copied and shared over the internet while the original Rolex stays intact and with its owner. My point was that pirated music, etc. would only affect people if those who stole the music, etc. would have paid for it had they not had access to the pirated versions. If they wouldn't have paid for it, then nobody lost any money.
Click to expand...

ThePlayDrive said:
Really? Do you have some kind of report to back this up? And also, do you have proof that people who 'steal' music, etc. would have bought the products if they weren't available to 'steal'?
Click to expand...

So, it appears to be the crux of your argumentation here.

In any case, in the abstract above, it also says:

In the micro-data, a simple comparison of means shows that people who regularly download music online are more likely to buy music.
Click to expand...

"Download" meaning the P2P/Napster/Kazaa crowd. Thus, they probably would have paid if they couldn't have gotten it by piracy.

Given all that, do you want to take an actual position?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
People paying for Megaupload, at the most, shows that people know they can get more movies and television shows for their money. (in other words, it makes them even cheaper) It doesn't show that they would pay full price for them if illegal downloading and streaming were not available.

I never said the files didn't have any value. I questioned whether or not people would pay for them if they weren't available illegally.
(edited for relevance & space)
Click to expand...
What this whole thing is about, as I tried to illustrate with my joke, is price. If people would pay $0.01 for a copy of a movie and didn't even pay that much to the owner then it's theft, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether they would have paid $15 or $100, just that they would have paid any amount at all. You've just shown they obviously would pay - they just don't want to pay the price being asked. That's still theft. The owner could have made money had the illegal download not taken place.

1Perry said:
I read up to here. There is no privacy right to steal.
Click to expand...
I never said there was - maybe you should have kept reading. The Right to Privacy should have nothing to do with piracy and it's a shame these Acts make it so. (Privacy and piracy are different words - maybe that's what's hanging you up?)

It's not my ISP or the government's business to know what I am and am not viewing, downloading, uploading, etc. on the Net. ISP's do not currently monitor that information nor should they. However, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA would all require them to do so. I for one don't want Big Brother or any of his minions listening in on my conversations, do you? Do you honestly not care that you are monitored electronically? Would you not be outraged to find an electronic bug in your house - put there, of course, in the name of law enforcement? If you don't care about your Right to Privacy then maybe you should install a webcam in your bedroom. From what I've seen, many people will pay good money to watch video feeds like that.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
It's theft. There is no need for me to continually repeat that.
Click to expand...

Copying something is not taking the property of someone else.If you copy something the owner still has his property.Just like if I go to a store,see a table I like and go home and produce a copy of it.No one was deprived of their property. Your definition of theft is wrong.

Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession
 
jamesrage said:
Copying something is not taking the property of someone else.If you copy something the owner still has his property.Just like if I go to a store,see a table I like and go home and produce a copy of it.No one was deprived of their property. Your definition of theft is wrong.

Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession
Click to expand...
Let's look at it your way, then.

EA releases Battlefield 3. One guy buys the first disc, takes it home, copies it, then posts it on the Net for everyone else to copy. EA loses nothing, right, since no one physically walked out with a disc they didn't pay for? They spent $1M developing Battlefield 3 but they only sold ONE game for much, much less than $1M. How long do you think it will be before there's a Battlefield 4?
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
You're right, there isn't any reason for you to keep repeating that since that isn't the point of contention. When you figure out what it is and why illegal downloading and shoplifting are not analogous in the context of this discussion, get back to me.
Click to expand...

It is analogous. You've not made a single arguement that shoplifters haven't used for years.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's not my ISP or the government's business to know what I am and am not viewing, downloading, uploading, etc. on the Net. ISP's do not currently monitor that information nor should they. However, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA would all require them to do so. I for one don't want Big Brother or any of his minions listening in on my conversations, do you? Do you honestly not care that you are monitored electronically? Would you not be outraged to find an electronic bug in your house - put there, of course, in the name of law enforcement? If you don't care about your Right to Privacy then maybe you should install a webcam in your bedroom. From what I've seen, many people will pay good money to watch video feeds like that.
Click to expand...

Can I assume that you aren't a big advocate of those trying to stop child porn on the internet either then? (You made a much larger point which I'm happy to further discuss after we cover this point)
 
Last edited:
Copyrighting thought is a truly bizarre concept to being with. "I thought of and recorded I thought of it first!" and then it is illegal for you to think it without paying that person.
 
jamesrage said:
Copying something is not taking the property of someone else.If you copy something the owner still has his property.Just like if I go to a store,see a table I like and go home and produce a copy of it.No one was deprived of their property. Your definition of theft is wrong.

Theft | Define Theft at Dictionary.com
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession
Click to expand...

^ I agree with that.
 
1Perry said:
Can I assume that you aren't a big advocate of those trying to stop child porn on the internet either then? (You made a much larger point which I'm happy to further discuss after we cover this point)
Click to expand...
Not if they're going to invade everyone's privacy to do it - and I haven't seen any hints of that.

Not about pornography but related:

Sadly, child abuse happens every day in way too many homes in America. I'm sure that if every home were bugged and monitored to the extent the Fed monitors communications in and out of the US that we could catch, prosecute, and imprison a huge chunk of those child abusers. And no doubt many of the ones that weren't caught in the act would have a new incentive to stop. So, are YOU willing to sign up to have YOUR home bugged so we can catch all those child abusers out there?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Let's look at it your way, then.

EA releases Battlefield 3. One guy buys the first disc, takes it home, copies it, then posts it on the Net for everyone else to copy. EA loses nothing, right, since no one physically walked out with a disc they didn't pay for? They spent $1M developing Battlefield 3 but they only sold ONE game for much, much less than $1M. How long do you think it will be before there's a Battlefield 4?
Click to expand...

Theft is depriving someone of their property.It has nothing to do with the notion of whether or not they lose profits. The notion that every illegal downloader each equals a lost customer is ludicrous. I am sure that if twenty carpenters go to a store,see a chair they like and go home and make it there are probably a few that would have bought the chair if they didn't have any wood working skills.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Theft is depriving someone of their property.It has nothing to do with the notion of whether or not they lose profits. The notion that every illegal downloader equals a lost customer is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
If it were legal to distribute and download copies of games, software, and movies then there wouldn't BE any paying customers - at least, not enough of them to pay for development/production. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

If someone is going to be a pirate they should just own it instead of lying to themselves about what they are.
 
MoSurveyor said:
If it were legal to distribute and download copies of games, software, and movies then there wouldn't BE any paying customers - at least, not enough of them to pay for development/production. To think otherwise is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yes. because thinking in extremes like yours isn't?

Your statement is inherently dishonest - the issue is not downloading those for free, but whether or not you, *derp* DID it WITH or WITHOUT permission of the rightsholder. Legally free software, music, videos, etc all exist - varying degrees of quality. People still buy things, people make money off their works regardless. Piracy exists, people still buy things enough where your doom and gloom proposition is itself ludicrous.


MoSurveyor said:
If someone is going to be a pirate they should just own it instead of lying to themselves about what they are.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom