The Piracy "Problem" (2 Viewers)

[brent012]

You can avoid the geoblock on the article in The Australian by googling "Brandis calls time on online piracy" Some of the commenters on Gizmodo are mentioning the failed iiNet case and suggesting that this might be a move to pander to Murdoch.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/c...ly-considering-isp-blocking-anti-piracy-plan/

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

Is there something wrong with banning stealing?

 

[SpiralFlex]

Re: The p00n thread

Impossible to completely ban something like that. Them piraters are getting smarter. When there is a will, there is a way to get things illegally.

 

[obliviousninja]

Re: The p00n thread

Impossible to completely ban something like that. Them piraters are getting smarter. When there is a will, there is a way to get things illegally.

Yea, I agree, its gonna be impossible to enforce it. Cops are better off utilising their time/resources catching real criminals. I mean the most the gov. will do will be to implement something like a failed scheme of sopa.

 

[brent012]

Is there something wrong with banning stealing?

iiNet already won a court case about it though, by enforcing it Australian internet providers will get hurt for the benefit of mostly American companies. If Australia had something like Netflix or foxtel wasn't so expensive, full of ads and restrictive the amount of piracy would drop. That's not going to happen without NBN and with murdoch's ties to the government though.

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

So we should ignore stealing because its impossible to combat it?

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

iiNet already won a court case about it though, by enforcing it Australian internet providers will get hurt for the benefit of mostly American companies. If Australia had something like Netflix or foxtel wasn't so expensive, full of ads and restrictive the amount of piracy would drop. That's not going to happen without NBN and with murdoch's ties to the government though.

But Netflix and Foxtel have every right to run ads, and charge expensive things, they are a private enterprise. It doesn't change the fact that piracy is stealing no matter how you look at it

 

[brent012]

No but comparing piracy directly to stealing is an outdated idea. Going after pirates rather than addressing the cause didn't work in the early 00s and it won't work now.

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

No but comparing piracy directly to stealing is an outdated idea. Going after pirates rather than addressing the cause didn't work in the early 00s and it won't work now.

Why is piracy different to stealing?
Calling it outdated doesn't prove anything

 

[Kiraken]

Re: The p00n thread

i think it's because (granted i might be talking outta my ass cos i am technologically retarded) pirating in ways such as torrents etc. is essentially more like sharing your material with other people. Some guy who legitimately bought a CD puts up a torrent of said CD sharing his material with other people. It's like borrowing a game from your friend except it doesn't involve only one of you having it at a time. Furthermore, in an age of YouTube people can listen to music for free anyway and artists actually post their songs on YouTube themselves and don't have a problem with it. Granted, they get revenue from ads etc. on YouTube but surely the better thing to do then is to make ad revenue of torrent sites etc.?

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

i think it's because (granted i might be talking outta my ass cos i am technologically retarded) pirating in ways such as torrents etc. is essentially more like sharing your material with other people. Some guy who legitimately bought a CD puts up a torrent of said CD sharing his material with other people. It's like borrowing a game from your friend except it doesn't involve only one of you having it at a time. Furthermore, in an age of YouTube people can listen to music for free anyway and artists actually post their songs on YouTube themselves and don't have a problem with it. Granted, they get revenue from ads etc. on YouTube but surely the better thing to do then is to make ad revenue of torrent sites etc.?

But companies still make a net loss from not selling a CD that they should have.
The only difference between physical stealing and pirating is that the net amount of goods remains the same when one steals, its just the transfer of the good from one hand to the other, however pirating is the duplication and therefore creation of illegitimate copies of whatever media this is, due to the nature of this copying, it can generate a LOT of lost revenue as opposed to someone robbing a CD store.

 

[brent012]

Re: The p00n thread

But Netflix and Foxtel have every right to run ads, and charge expensive things, they are a private enterprise. It doesn't change the fact that piracy is stealing no matter how you look at it

We don't have netflix, that contributes to the problem. Convenience is a large attraction for piracy.

Why is piracy different to stealing?
Calling it outdated doesn't prove anything

Look up copyright reform, the difference is that when a physical good is stolen the owner has lost tangible assets from the theft. Piracy is just hypothetical losses and a lot of the time when something is pirated a potential sale is not actually lost as the pirate never would have bought it legitimately in the first place. It's comparable to saying that $10 rolex watches on the streets of China have a large impact on the sale of genuine Rolexs.

Also under the definition you are using for stealing, buying used music, dvds and games would also be considered stealing as the owners of the copyright are not receiving anything for it.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: The p00n thread

But companies still make a net loss from not selling a CD that they should have.
The only difference between physical stealing and pirating is that the net amount of goods remains the same when one steals, its just the transfer of the good from one hand to the other, however pirating is the duplication and therefore creation of illegitimate copies of whatever media this is, due to the nature of this copying, it can generate a LOT of lost revenue as opposed to someone robbing a CD store.

Yes, but surely rather than getting rid of piracy they can find a way to make money out of it i.e. revenue from ads on torrenting sites? By the same logic, YouTube also results in a net loss of revenue in terms of not selling CDs, however they circumvented this issue via getting revenue from ads etc.

Allowing users to download music for free also increases the potential market enormously, people are more willing to listen and commit to bands after giving them a try for free by downloading some of their music. Many people then go on to pay for CDs etc. to support bands they particularly like. It would interesting to see how the music industry is faring nowadays because I daresay contrary to the doomsday predictions about piracy they are making more money than ever.

 

[Absolutezero]

Piracy results in loss of potential profits.
Piracy is intellectual theft
Technology moves faster than business models possibly can
People pirate because it's free, not because of a valid moral platform
These are things we know as fact

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

We don't have netflix, that contributes to the problem. Convenience is a large attraction for piracy.

Whatever the reason why piracy occurs in Australia is entirely irrelevant, these aren't necessities, they are luxury goods.

Look up copyright reform, the difference is that when a physical good is stolen the owner has lost tangible assets from the theft. Piracy is just hypothetical losses and a lot of the time when something is pirated a potential sale is not actually lost as the pirate never would have bought it legitimately in the first place. It's comparable to saying that $10 rolex watches on the streets of China have a large impact on the sale of genuine Rolexs.

Also under the definition you are using for stealing, buying used music, dvds and games would also be considered stealing as the owners of the copyright are not receiving anything for it.

'A lot of the time' is not measurable, moreover even if 1 CD could have been bought instead of pirated then that is an illegitimate loss of revenue, hypothetical or not, the loss of revenue still stands

In your analogy, if they are real watches, and the sellers are willing to sell it at that price then that is fine and it is the decision of the business to sell it at that price.

Buying used CDs is similar to how businesses will buy from a supplier who produces a good, it is simply the transfer of ownership of that good. Piracy is not the transfer of ownership of media, it is the illegitimate duplication of media that is distributed.

Yes, but surely rather than getting rid of piracy they can find a way to make money out of it i.e. revenue from ads on torrenting sites? By the same logic, YouTube also results in a net loss of revenue in terms of not selling CDs, however they circumvented this issue via getting revenue from ads etc.

Allowing users to download music for free also increases the potential market enormously, people are more willing to listen and commit to bands after giving them a try for free by downloading some of their music. Many people then go on to pay for CDs etc. to support bands they particularly like. It would interesting to see how the music industry is faring nowadays because I daresay contrary to the doomsday predictions about piracy they are making more money than ever.

I sincerly doubt that all artists generate more revenue purely from ads. It still doesn't change the fact that piracy is stealing though. Also artists putting their work onto Youtube is their own business choice and whether it results in a loss of revenue or not is in the control of the company.

Whether or not there is a potential to make more revenue by allowing users to download the music for free does not change the premise that piracy is still stealing.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: The p00n thread

Whatever the reason why piracy occurs in Australia is entirely irrelevant, these aren't necessities, they are luxury goods.



'A lot of the time' is not measurable, moreover even if 1 CD could have been bought instead of pirated then that is an illegitimate loss of revenue, hypothetical or not, the loss of revenue still stands

In your analogy, if they are real watches, and the sellers are willing to sell it at that price then that is fine and it is the decision of the business to sell it at that price.

Buying used CDs is similar to how businesses will buy from a supplier who produces a good, it is simply the transfer of ownership of that good. Piracy is not the transfer of ownership of media, it is the illegitimate duplication of media that is distributed.



I sincerly doubt that all artists generate more revenue purely from ads. It still doesn't change the fact that piracy is stealing though. Also artists putting their work onto Youtube is their own business choice and whether it results in a loss of revenue or not is in the control of the company.

Whether or not there is a potential to make more revenue by allowing users to download the music for free does not change the premise that piracy is still stealing.

But then again, is it technically "stealing" if the owner hasn't actually lost a tangible item? And if the person copying the good doesn't get any sort of profit out of it for themselves? Is copying and duplicating really the same as stealing?

 

[brent012]

Re: The p00n thread

In your analogy, if they are real watches, and the sellers are willing to sell it at that price then that is fine and it is the decision of the business to sell it at that price.

Swiss watches are worth $1000s of dollars in materials, the $10-$100 watches from China are counterfeits/"replicas". While a high end replica would have a negative effect on the sale of genuine watches (especially when misrepresented as genuine), everyone knows what they are getting with a $10 fake and would not be buying the real thing. While it's not a perfect analogy there are many parallels - legitimately purchased media is usually of a much higher quality, includes extras and much to the chagrin of the copyright owners you can resell them.

Buying used CDs is similar to how businesses will buy from a supplier who produces a good, it is simply the transfer of ownership of that good. Piracy is not the transfer of ownership of media, it is the illegitimate duplication of media that is distributed.

Nope, a shop buys a good solely to sell it on to a consumer and will usually replace it with more goods to sell. When a consumer sells a good second hand as you have said it is just the transfer of goods, the copyright owner doesn't get a cent. The fact that DRM exists proves that copyright owners aren't cool with this transfer.

In the end though, bringing this back to my original point... Australian's are pretty tech savvy and even if anything could be done to combat piracy in th emanner they are proposing (and that's a big if) there are foolproof ways of bypassing anything which could be blocked and the government knows this. That is why people are speculating that this push by the Liberals is just pandering to Murdoch (who already benefits from a scrapped NBN).

 

[JT145]

Prohibition

 

[Sy123]

Re: The p00n thread

But then again, is it technically "stealing" if the owner hasn't actually lost a tangible item? And if the person copying the good doesn't get any sort of profit out of it for themselves? Is copying and duplicating really the same as stealing?

Yes I think copying and duplicating is inherently stealing, as Absolutezero said, it is 'intellectual theft', and that is just one example. Piracy highly elasticizes the market for media and therefore not only does piracy distort market forces but it creates an illegitimate supply

Swiss watches are worth $1000s of dollars in materials, the $10-$100 watches from China are counterfeits/"replicas". While a high end replica would have a negative effect on the sale of genuine watches (especially when misrepresented as genuine), everyone knows what they are getting with a $10 fake and would not be buying the real thing. While it's not a perfect analogy there are many parallels - legitimately purchased media is usually of a much higher quality, includes extras and much to the chagrin of the copyright owners you can resell the,.

Counterfeiting is an entirely different issue, what I'm saying is that if the market price is that in China then that is fine, if there is any illegal activity involved such as False advertising or counterfeiting then that is something different, and is in fact comparable to piracy

Nope, a shop buys a good solely to sell it on to a consumer and will usually replace it with more goods to sell. When a consumer sells a good second hand as you have said it is just the transfer of goods, the copyright owner doesn't get a cent. The fact that DRM exists proves that copyright owners aren't cool with this transfer.

In the end though, bringing this back to my original point... Australian's are pretty tech savvy and even if anything could be done to combat piracy in th emanner they are proposing (and that's a big if) there are foolproof ways of bypassing anything which could be blocked and the government knows this. That is why people are speculating that this push by the Liberals is just pandering to Murdoch (who already benefits from a scrapped NBN).

When used goods are being sold, there is still a transfer in ownership, and despite a cent not going to the copyright owner, there is still an appropriate level of goods in the market as opposed to piracy where there are many illegitimate being mass produced and distributed.

There are also foolproof ways to hack any computer system, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and protect our systems against a cyber-attack.

 

[funkshen]

"Pirating" or illegally downloading/sharing any form of media does not meet the legal definition of larceny or theft in any jurisdiction in Australia.

Conflating piracy (a form of unlawful use; also see reselling certain forms of media) and theft (unlawful deprivation of property without any intention to return said property) is an exercise in intellectual bankruptcy. It is a cheap, rhetorical ploy. Unlawful use of intellectual property is exactly that: unlawful use. No more, no less.