Record companies promote "diversity of new music", and the only way to get the word out about your great music is to lock it up behind copyright and give 99.9% of your profits to a record company.
However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics.
[Citation Needed]
The field of ethics somewhat necessarily depends on the framework of the universe it is embedded in. I'm pretty sure that bluffing in poker is not considered unethical, for example. Likewise, shooting a wounded player in Battlefield 3 is not unethical, because the framework of that game does not allow for the nuances of the real world, nor are the consequences for that action remotely similar.
Citizens United didn't change how much a politician can received in campaign contributions. It simply said that the government was not allowed to prohibit speech by an organization (corporations included) merely because that speech was political in nature. It didn't say money was speech, it said speech was speech.
I seriously wish people would read about the case before they go off on it because of what they heard someone say it was about.
I could see how you would believe this but it is incorrect. If I download an MP3 from Amazon, and then refuse to pay them (perhaps by stopping the transaction on my credit card), that would be a theft of service, because I used someone's service and then refused to pay the agreed upon price.
If I download the same MP3 from a torrent tracker, I have stolen no service, because the only people participating in the transfer (i.e. the service providers, the other seeders) have willingly offered this service at no cost to me.
And I don't think recording concerts is illegal in general, although it may be against the rules of the venue (i.e. the people who own the actual property in the scenario).
The world still wants the products of the the content industry (books, music, movies, video games)
I don't think you're taking into account everything that constitutes the product. Service, for example, is part of the product. It used to be that the record companies provided a product that included the content in a physical form (tapes, CDs, etc.). In other words, they never sold just the content; they also sold the means by which it could be consumed.
The market for this "total" product is rapidly diminishing. The new "total" product the market demands includes quick, easy, digital distribution without hassle. If they can't produce this product to the satisfaction of consumers, they will lose business to those who can (in this case, the pirate sites). Instead of recognizing this fact, they try their damndest to make their total product less appetizing to consumers with draconian DRM, unskippable previews, and insulting FBI warnings.
As someone who doesn't believe in intellectual property and has no problem copying content, let me say that even the pirate sites are not the pinnacle of service. The price is right and the DRM is nonexistent, sure, but torrents are frequently of poor quality, not audio synced correctly, don't play at all, and sometimes include malware. There is still room for competition here from content creators and publishers, as I think Steam and Netflix (if the content industry doesn't strangle it to death) show quite clearly.
"Theft" is not a strong enough word, obviously. The term they need to start using is "intellectual rape", just to drive the point home how serious it all is.
I look forward to the new FBI warnings:
You wouldn't rape a prostitute.
You wouldn't rape a family member.
You wouldn't rape a child.
Downloading pirated films is rape!
Rape is against the law!
Maybe then they can shift the arguments somewhat:
"Why does everyone here defend rapists? Just because a girl doesn't give it up in the way you want her to doesn't mean you have a right to rape her! So why is it okay to rape the intellects of others through filesharing? Have you no moral character?!"
They were patent trolling for years before it became mainstream (patent troll hipsters?). Read up on their history with John Carmack of id software fame.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re:
No.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re:
Careful, your troll colors are showing.
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re: Technical question
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re:
You heard it hear first, folks!
On the post: Red Cross Wants Real Life Laws Enforced Within Virtual Worlds
The field of ethics somewhat necessarily depends on the framework of the universe it is embedded in. I'm pretty sure that bluffing in poker is not considered unethical, for example. Likewise, shooting a wounded player in Battlefield 3 is not unethical, because the framework of that game does not allow for the nuances of the real world, nor are the consequences for that action remotely similar.
On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
Re:
Citizens United didn't change how much a politician can received in campaign contributions. It simply said that the government was not allowed to prohibit speech by an organization (corporations included) merely because that speech was political in nature. It didn't say money was speech, it said speech was speech.
I seriously wish people would read about the case before they go off on it because of what they heard someone say it was about.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Pirating Song For Anti-Piracy Ad... Corruption Scandal Erupts In Response
Re: Re: Re: No, the hypocrisy is pro-pirates gleefully ruling out "free"!
The simple truth is that BREIN is full of hypocrites, which is what the point of this whole story was.
Keep defending corporate douchebags, though.
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Zero sum game
If I download the same MP3 from a torrent tracker, I have stolen no service, because the only people participating in the transfer (i.e. the service providers, the other seeders) have willingly offered this service at no cost to me.
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
And I don't think recording concerts is illegal in general, although it may be against the rules of the venue (i.e. the people who own the actual property in the scenario).
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
Re:
The market for this "total" product is rapidly diminishing. The new "total" product the market demands includes quick, easy, digital distribution without hassle. If they can't produce this product to the satisfaction of consumers, they will lose business to those who can (in this case, the pirate sites). Instead of recognizing this fact, they try their damndest to make their total product less appetizing to consumers with draconian DRM, unskippable previews, and insulting FBI warnings.
As someone who doesn't believe in intellectual property and has no problem copying content, let me say that even the pirate sites are not the pinnacle of service. The price is right and the DRM is nonexistent, sure, but torrents are frequently of poor quality, not audio synced correctly, don't play at all, and sometimes include malware. There is still room for competition here from content creators and publishers, as I think Steam and Netflix (if the content industry doesn't strangle it to death) show quite clearly.
On the post: Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
New FBI Warnings
I look forward to the new FBI warnings:
Maybe then they can shift the arguments somewhat:
On the post: Announcing Contest Winners!
Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That ICE May Be Breaking The Law Showing NBC Universal Propaganda Films On Domains It Seized
A Way Out
On the post: The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA
Re: SOPA needed because Grooveshark is GRIFTING:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
On the post: The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA
Re:
On the post: Tech Companies Getting Called Out For Supporting PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "their gamer customers will stay angry."
If he only had a brain . . .
On the post: Tech Companies Getting Called Out For Supporting PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Yep
Truly a bunch of dirtbags.
On the post: Tech Companies Getting Called Out For Supporting PIPA/SOPA
Yep
1. Sony
2. Apple
3. Creative
Microsoft is on the list too, but unfortunately I can't avoid Windows. The rest of their products are definitely "do not buy" for me, though.
Next >>