First of all, you need to get rid of the idea that file sharing sites (where anyone can upload or download anything they want) are the only way to distribute digital content. You can very easily have sites, independent of the big studios, that only allow downloads and streaming of material that isn't owned by the big studios. How do you do that? By coming up with your own ideas and characters and content. And considering that everyone on this board claims Hollywood is out of ideas, that shouldn't be too hard, right? Secondly, Pirate Bay is specifically claiming that they're the equivalent of early Hollywood, despite the fact that early Hollywood produced it's own entertainment content and Pirate Bay doesn't. How can that possibly make sense as an argument about the merits of piracy? It doesn't. Despite all the blah blah blah about how Hollywood's content sucks or is too expensive, all Pirate Bay does is regurgitate that content via the internet. They don't have any clever ideas about how to make better content or how to run an entertainment production company with lower prices. Was Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker copyrighted by DC or Marvel? Nope. George Lucas actually took the time to create his own characters that were influenced by comics (Vader is VERY similar to Doctor Doom) but were different enough that he holds his own copyright. Thus, your own ideas are on the same playing field as the big boys, and if Marvel wants to make a Star Wars comic (which they did), they have to pay a licensing fee. That's what copyright is about. It's not just protection for the big money establishment. It's protection for people like Lucas that were just starting out and had their own original ideas.
There's a problem with your retail store analogy: torrents and file sharing sites aren't set up like retail stores. Random customers don't walk in and browse the content to see if there's something they might be interested in. Torrent users have to know exactly what they're looking for in order to find it through search. The random browsing part (which would fit the retail scenario) has already been done prior to that. The torrent user sees media promotion about movies, music, and games and decides which ones they want. THEN they go to the torrent or file sharing sites... I agree that not every download is the equivalent of lost revenue, but it's going to be higher than 1 out of every 100. Why were so many people willing to pay Megaupload fees to use their service? That company was generating hundreds of millions in revenue.
Victimless crime is right. Piracy shouldn't even be called piracy. Piracy implies theft, and the US defines theft as permanently depriving someone of their property.
when I torrent I know exactly what I want as much or even less than when I go to newegg. But that's different I guess... men don't shop (a lot)... but than again, women ... well I can't speak for them, but I'd assume they don't torrend much anyway. So your analogy, alterego, is kind of 'planted' or 'damned if you do damned if you don't' I might even call it apples and Oranges! as in super is pointing out a mostly 'male' obsession, you point to a more female 'obsession'. Secondly all I'm saying is if you think of it in 'older' terms, piracy realy isn't all that outrageous. There's really room for both methods only the Hollywood/ Retail/ Democatic side is complaining really, they want their monopoly on bad.
Exactly. A download is not a lost sale. No merchandise has been taken, and in nearly all cases the person never would have bought it anyway. It's not really theft or piracy either. It's technically copyright infringement, which like jaywalking or speeding, is barely a crime as far as most rational people are concerned. And it's not like it's anything new. If in the past you ever made a mix tape, photocopied a library book, or recorded a show or movie on VHS, you were committing copyright infringement. Copyright laws are woefully out of date, and need to be changed or abolished altogether to reflect modern technology.
All of the legal modes of digital distribution for movies at this point are absolutely horrid. Netflix streaming is full of one star B-movies like Troll 2. Everything on iTunes is so DRM'ed up the ass that it's pretty worthless. Hulu has nothing on it. Hollywood has no answer to bit-torrent. Bit-torrent is way more convenient, has a much better, much higher quality selection, and doesn't have DRM. When the free option is far better than your paid option, you're doing something wrong. Hollywood needs to take a look at what Valve has done with Steam and come out with something like that for movies. I no longer illegally download PC games because Steam is so cheap and convenient it's pointless. They need to come out with a service that's so cheap, so convenient, and that has such a good selection that most people won't bother with bit-torrent. Hollywood seems to be stuck in the old theater and physical media way of doing things, but that just isn't how people watch movies anymore now that we have high speed internet and HDTVs. And 3D gimmicks aren't going to get people to go back to theaters. Pirate Bay and other torrent sites are just giving the people what they want, which is what Hollywood refuses to give them, because they're greedy and out of touch.
You don't even see the danger of your own argument when it comes to rights. If piracy is victimless, then it also follows that shutting down file sharing sites that involve piracy is also victimless. Where's the property? Where's the harm? File sharers don't even own the material they're uploading and downloading most of the time, and even if they do...it's obviously worthless because the content that entertainment companies own is also considered worthless. Why would you need to protect file sharing if the files themselves are worthless regardless of who owns them?
File sharing companies are doing the same thing that Napster was doing 10 years ago. Where's the progress? Pirate Bay seems to be operating under the delusion that they're the equivalent of Hollywood and don't need Hollywood, despite the fact that they don't produce content. They're in a rut and completely dependent on the old physical media Hollywood puts out.
Napster was way ahead of its time. And the music industry is finally catching up after more than a decade. We now have Spotify, Pandora, and music videos on youtube. It certainly took them long enough though. They also went through a sue happy dickhead phase, before realizing they couldn't fight progress and got with the times. Eventually the movie industry will get there too, but they're going to fight it every step of the way, because just like the music industry, they seem to think their product is a lot more valuable than it actually is. Pirate Bay is a good preview of what a proper movie digital distribution service might be like 10 or 15 years from now. I don't think most people care too much when pirate sites get shut down. You shut down one and ten more spring up to replace it, or they just move the trackers to another country. And generally most of the content coming out of Hollywood is pretty worthless. I think $8-10/month for every movie in existence with no DRM would be fair. Or maybe make it ad supported. Most movies aren't worth spending any real money on. They have only slightly more entertainment value than TV shows for the most part, and very few warrant watching more than once. There are exceptions, like those movies in our greatest movies of all time thread, but those movies are very rare. The problem with SOPA is that it's major overkill in dealing with piracy. It would destroy free speech on the internet and probably mean an end to most user created content. Also, if megaupload is any indication, it seems like the government already has more than enough power to take down infringing sites.
Napster and the idea of digital distribution was cutting edge 10 years ago. Now...not so much. File sharing companies have been on the rinse/repeat cycle for a decade, and apparently all they've been doing during that time is convincing themselves that they're the equivalent of Hollywood (despite supposedly hating Hollywood). They look pretty complacent and lazy to me. Why not put their actions where their mouths are and actually prove that spending billions on generating original entertainment content can be supported by a system where people choose whether or not they actually pay for something after they use it? Nah, too much effort and they probably know it's bullish*t anyway. Why should I believe that you care about free speech rights when you already said that you think copyrights are outdated and should be done away with? Those are legal rights with a long legal history behind them. Cherry picking the rights you support due to convenience is EXACTLY what is wrong with SOPA/PIPA.
Copyright isn't guaranteed by the constitution like free speech. Copyright is also antiquated, and has failed in its intended purpose which was to encourage innovation. Innovation typically happens when people build on existing ideas, but that can't occur with copyright. Copyright should be abolished. It's holding back technological and scientific progress. America was built on taking existing ideas and tweaking them and making them better. Take Americanized Chinese food for instance. It tastes way better than the crap they eat in China. Copyright is un-American.
A. Copyright is a legal precedent. It doesn't have to literally be in the Constitution because the Constitution allows Congress to pass new laws. B. The failure to innovate is the most obvious on the file sharing side. The file sharing companies themselves don't actually create original content, and the most popular uploads/downloads are not created by file sharing users. They're simply reproduced copies from preexisting products created by someone else. It's a system that literally has nothing to offer on it's own merits.
[quote author=alterego] B. The failure to innovate is the most obvious on the file sharing side. [/quote] huh? It's the movie studios that are stuck in the outdated theater/physical media model of movie distribution, which hasn't been relevant for at least five years. Pirate sites thrive because they've failed to keep up with technology.
The technology behind downloads and streaming isn't a mystery to anyone. Pirate sites thrive because they don't create any of the content that draws their users, which means their business model is completely different. That's the reason you hear sites like Pirate Bay claiming they're the equivalent of Hollywood, but you don't see them backing up that claim by progressing to original content creation. They know it's far more expensive and risky. It's easier to just rake in the millions from someone else's labor.
[quote author=alterego] That's the reason you hear sites like Pirate Bay claiming they're the equivalent of Hollywood, but you don't see them backing up that claim by progressing to original content creation. They know it's far more expensive and risky. It's easier to just rake in the millions from someone else's labor. [/quote] That's actually not true. I've seen them work with indie film makers and musicians to distribute stuff before. You'll often see indie stuff promoted on the main page.
I'm not talking about distribution. I'm talking about bankrolling original content creation with their own money. I'm talking about spending tens of millions of dollars to fund original movies and games etc., and then giving users the choice of whether they pay for it or simply download it for free. The fact that you don't see them doing that is all the proof you need that they don't see the money in it. They disrupted distribution, but they don't have ideas for anything beyond that.
Dude. You type so much about copyright infringement. You should turn this thread into a personal anti-piracy blog.
I think Alterego may be connected to big content in some way. He seems to have a personal vendetta against pirates.