A close friend of mine lives in Sweden. She's been excited about it for a while, and I think she's been talking about software and media piracy in response to their ridiculous regulations on the subject. Though, those two things may be unrelated.

 Reply

Wouldn't terrorists just switch to something else? Like radio transmitters.

 Reply

Please be a bit less of a douche bag, and don't presume you're the only one who knows anything about the rest of the world.

 Reply

Yeah, they are starting to sound more and more like Robin Hood of Sherwood Torrent...

 Reply

In the 21st Century, whatever this Human wants is this Human's Right!

 Reply

I more or less agree with you. Your examples are part of the industry's ridiculous posturing I referenced in my first comment. I, too, am infuriated by some of those schemes.

@jackbling: "...i will always download first, i buy many games, but i download virtually everything that hits, 98% of the things i download i would never buy, the other 2% i cant afford."

And here's where I disagree with you and where the "self-serving" comes in. You seem to be taking the position that if you can't afford a game or a movie (or just don't like its price), downloading it for free is therefore OK. No.

Granted, for any particular movie/game/whatever, iit could be said that the price set is "too high" and that a financial analysis might show that the vendor/distributor would do far better sales volume if the product were repriced lower, yadda yadda yadda--but that pricing, good or bad, is simply not our call. You don't like the price of something (or can't afford it)? Fine. Don't buy it. But pirating it, even from the position of "I'll download it and if I like it I will then buy it" (Yeah. Right. Give me a break.) is not a fair solution.

 Reply

Here is why digital distribution is bad for record/movie companies. For many years these companies had been investing in purchasing the manufacturing and distribution industries associated with their livelihood. So, record, cd, and dvd manufacturing plants, distribution logistics, etc. BILLIONS of dollars of financial outlay and BILLIONS of dollars of income from these sub-industries. Along comes digital distribution at a time when record companies haven't quite yet paid of the debt incurred in buying up the distribution network. Whoops.

So, in order to protect their livelihood and income they go after people like rabid monkeys on crack, pop rocks, and jolt cola.

Pretty much, can you blame them for attempting to protect their profits? No. At which point you get rootkit audio CD's etc...

Now that they have had a few years to adjust, and the market has scaled horizontally (rather than vertically) where each song is not only a song, it's a digital sale, a piece of an album, a music video, a movie tie-in, and a ring-tone. Now they can embrace the technology as they've expanded their revenue streams outwards once more. Digital distribution isn't quite such a big deal now to them, but they're still actually hurting financially from all of this.

Uncontrolled digital distribution is bad because you lose control of the distribution process, quality control, and customer experience.

What many people do not seem to grasp is that while you own the CD/DVD you purchased, you do not own the rights to distribute the contents of that item. You have purchased effectively a CD/DVD, and the right to view/listen to the content. Not the rights to the content itself.

 Reply

".. What many people do not seem to grasp is that while you own the CD/DVD you purchased, you do not own the rights to distribute the contents of that item. You have purchased effectively a CD/DVD, and the right to view/listen to the content. Not the rights to the content itself...."

exactly. which is wrong. WE should OWN the experience/content and we are exerting our intention to have that right by civil(corporate) disobedience and activism - now referred to as pirating. Its all about creating a better, big-corporate-media free world. Just because its illegal doesn't mean its wrong. The ideal world is where an artist is paid a fee to put the content out there (taxes,gigs,physical show/media) and then the world can do with it whatever they want. Why do artists have such a huge ego that their work cannot be manipulated when it gets out there. Control freak is not a cool attitude.

 Reply

Peas in a pod, as far as I'm concerned.

 Reply

If I believe that all trailer parks, and their inhabitants should be bulldozed, and do just that with inhabitants inside, is what I have done wrong? I mean, sure, it's illegal, but I believe it to be the right thing to do.

This isn't about your civil rights here. This is about people stealing product simply because they want to. Let's say you invented a widget and sold one to someone. Is it now legal for that person to reproduce your exact same widget and sell it for cheaper than you can make it, thus driving you out of business?

These companies put millions of dollars into their products, and need to make money in order to continue to to produce more products. Since when is wanting to be profitable a bad thing?

As for the Artists? Do you realize exactly how little money they get from your purchase of their album? They make a staggeringly low amount of money. But what you're saying is that an artist should get a flat fee for creation, and not be reimbursed for the success of their product?

For the most part Artists are already getting screwed, and the only ways they make money is by either producing music for others, holding concerts, and product endorsements. They make money from pretty much everything but selling the music they make.

The true way to show your disdain is to simply not purchase music. Not purchase movies. Instead, you're actually resorting to theft because you're don't feel strongly enough about your point to simply go without. No, you're actually just greedy and creating ways to justify your theft.

If you really want to support an artist, go see them in concert. Then at least your money goes to them and not the actions of companies whom you blame the Artists for.

 Reply

When people feel strongly enough about the price gouging, they should simply find other ways to entertain themselves and show the companies that rather than steal your content, I'm simply just not going to buy it at all.

Kind of why I go to smaller concerts that don't use Ticketmaster for booking. I don't appreciate being price gouged $15 for convenience fees and then another $2.50 per ticket so that I can print the damn things myself.

 Reply

Yeah. Right. So, if you buy (or, in your case, 'get') a copy of the latest Coldplay album, you should OWN the music just as if you yourself were the musicians who created it. Umm...yeah. Let us all know the next time you are playing in concert.

Any musician, writer, artist, photographer, filmmaker or other creative person or team absolutely has the right to say how their creative product is used in any kind of public performance or distribution medium. That's copyright. That's how it is. That's how it should be.

@designguybrown: "Just because its illegal doesn't mean its wrong. "

Agreed. Just because pirating movies/games/software/music/etc. is illegal does not mean it is wrong*. However, pirating does mean you are a self-serving jackass.

*Well, it is wrong, but I'm going for the joke here.

 Reply

Because at what point does it stop being that artists work and becomes someone elses?

I hate remixes, but lets use that as an example. I take an old ABBA tune and use part of its riff in a new song. By your logic I don't have to pay ABBA any rights because the end result is not their song? Bull.

"WE should OWN the experience/content"

Wrong. Nobody but the inventor/creator of that content owns it. I purchased a Harry Potter book. That does not give me the right to scan it, change the name of the character to Floyd Dewitbucator and resell it under my own name. The story still belongs to JK Rowling. It's her work and I have purchased the right to read it.

The only people I ever hear advocating this sort of nonsense are people that are too lazy to have created anything in their life. Those of us that have created material people enjoy buying will protect it as much as possible because it's how we put food on our plates.

The previously attempted point of "I can't afford it so I just download it" is absurd. If you can't afford it, go get a better job because you don't have the rights to steal it.

 Reply

* adds diverguy to list of "hearted" people *

 Reply

"... Because at what point does it stop being that artists work and becomes someone elses?..."

At the point it has been released to the world.

"... By your logic I don't have to pay ABBA any rights because the end result is not their song? Bull...."

That's how it SHOULD be, yes.

".. Wrong. Nobody but the inventor/creator of that content owns it. I purchased a Harry Potter book. That does not give me the right to scan it, change the name of the character to Floyd Dewitbucator and resell it under my own name. The story still belongs to JK Rowling. It's her work and I have purchased the right to read it. ..."

I don't agree. I don't respect the right of authors to get rich off a non-physical product. She should be given a flat wage (same as any other artist) for the book and then out into the world it goes where people can do whatever hey want with it. Someone should pay if they want the physical copy and should not if they want a digital copy.

"... The only people I ever hear advocating this sort of nonsense are people that are too lazy to have created anything in their life. Those of us that have created material people enjoy buying will protect it as much as possible because it's how we put food on our plates...."

I am an architect and have created beautiful things. I don't get paid when people look, experience or photograph my buildings. I get paid by the owner once and then it is then part of the public realm for all to enjoy as they see fit- a perfect honourable transaction if you ask me.

And for those who only produce content in a digital format and distribute it that way- i care not a whit for you. You are not doing real work (until you print it out that is - then well... good job). Go get paid for it!!!

 Reply

She has the right to such a limited usage due to SO many factors. One is that copyright has time limits after which a copyright expires, meaning one CAN use the content as one wishes--that's how so many old books are being offered for free through services like Stanza and eReader.

But the bigger factor, by far, is a principle called "Fair Use". If you are not familiar with this concept, you might look it up.

 Reply

What would you feel, honestly, if someone took your design and made another building from it?

 Reply

mimicry is the highest form of flattery.

I don't copyright any of my drawings, models, or imagery - never have. On the other hand, i don't produce suburban clones or non-profit housing either - just lucky, i guess.

 Reply

Flattery puts food on your table does it? Pay's the bills? I'm sure someone can stave off foreclosure on their house when they've gone out of business by simply saying how flattered they are to have been cloned to death.

BTW, you have actually copywritten every single one of your models, drawings and imagery whether you realize it or not. The instant it was conceived, you had the copyright to it. That's the law.

And someday, when someone comes along and takes one of your drawings, makes a copy of it, then proceeds to find a way to make billions off of those copies, you'll be wanting to know where your share is...

 Reply

* whispering *

Pssst. Hey, diverguy. Listen up. Given this guy's, umm, competency, I don't think that has the remotest chance of ever becoming a problem...

Yeah, I've resorted to 100% pure snarkiness--only because I've had to conclude that this guy can't really be that ignorant but must be a troll laughing at us for taking his bait.

 Reply

Yeah, I know exactly what you're saying! Being so cool that

wait

Umm...just when did hula hoops and Dan Fogelberg become not cool?

* quickly swaps Phoenix CD for X&Y *

* both legally purchased *

 Reply