Feds Shutdown Top File-Sharing Site, Megaupload Today
- Thread starter Erika Red
- Start date
-
- Tags
- news of 2012
So - it's ok for me to walk into the local Mercedes dealer and steal a brand new CL just because I "would most likely not have purchased the item to begin with"?
The two are not comparable. I am not sure why we are trying to act like it is. Hell, we aren't even comparing apples to oranges in this analogy. It would be more like comparing a pineapple to tuna fish. Talk about blowing shit out of proportion. Stealing a $50,000+ car is not the same as downloading a $10 music CD. I am pretty sure that there is a bit more thought that goes into stealing a car. The way things are looking, however, I'd probably get a penalty less draconian for stealing the car as compared to downloading that $10 CD.
In any case, my stance has not changed. For example, Lets say I had no plans on purchasing Avatar on DVD or Blu Ray or even watching the movie at all to be honest. If someone gives it to me for free, are you really losing anything since I wasn't gonna buy it to begin with? That's all I was getting at.
It is exactly the same thing. Did you get something? Yes. Did you pay for it? No. That's called stealing. The amount of money involved is irrelevant.
RichardNailder
Approved Content Owner
It's amazing how thieves try to justify their actions.
But at least we know who not to invite to our homes.
RichardNailder
Approved Content Owner
You my friend don't have a clue..........................
A CL cost much more than $50,000.
And you're a thief - plain and simple.
Grand theft auto is different than theft under $500 I'm pretty sure. And stealing is depriving the owner of the object that was stolen. I'm all for these sites getting shutdown, but there is a difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Just saying. Stealing isn't stealing in this case.
Disregard that. I love cocks.
Disregard that. I love cocks.
You're a pretty smart guy, and in general I agree with you. But in this instance I'm confused - you think stealing something expensive is different than stealing something cheap? Aren't they both stealing?
Briana Lee
Official Checked Star Member
So - it's ok for me to walk into the local Mercedes dealer and steal a brand new CL just because I "would most likely not have purchased the item to begin with"?
:goodpost:
Why is it different? It doesn't matter what the item is. Someone put their life/time into producing that item, be it a car, music, porn whatever so don't you think they deserve to get paid for it?
What about the people that actually abide by the law & respect the artist/producer & pay for the item? What makes you better than them? Why should you get it for free when they've paid out their hard earned money to buy it?
Exactly!! :thumbsup:
It makes me so mad!! Using the 'I probably wouldn't have bought it anyway so no one's losing out' excuse is just aload of bullshit and is just a lame excuse. However you try to justify it, it's still stealing guys plain and simple.
RichardNailder
Approved Content Owner
Go ahead and sell the cd - delete your copies and let the new owner enjoy the music - but the minute you are both using the content that only one of you paid for - one or both of you are using stolen content.
It was paid for, so its not stolen.
The problem isn't people downloading. It's the uploading that needs to be prevented.
Try arguing that point with any court and see how fast you get laughed out of it. I am over here laughing my ass off because you are essentially saying that a person should get the same punishment for ripping off a CD as they would for a car jacking. That's dumb.
Sorry pal, not much of a car guy so I have no clue as to what a Mercedes CL is or what it even looks like, nor do I have any interest in finding out. I did, however, read that it was a Mercedes and knew that it had to be over the $50,000 mark.
Oh, and you sir are a rapist.
See, I can make false accusations to.
As someone who suffers from piracy, I think it's probably not the worst thing to steal content if you really don't have the money (porn being for many what the loaf of bread was to Jean Valjean,) but if you do have the money, it makes it even more important to pay to support the content you like.
As for sites that profit from content theft, they definitely deserve to be shut down and prosecuted (and possibly sodomized, mainly for the poetic justice element.)
As for sites that profit from content theft, they definitely deserve to be shut down and prosecuted (and possibly sodomized, mainly for the poetic justice element.)
I invited STDiva over to my house one time and he downloaded my dildo in his ass and said: That's that! And left.
He didn't even take the time to sit down and enjoy the meal I spent all day preparing for us for that special evening. :crying:
He is a thief. He stole my heart; he stole my dildo.
He didn't even take the time to sit down and enjoy the meal I spent all day preparing for us for that special evening. :crying:
He is a thief. He stole my heart; he stole my dildo.
What I'd like to see are pornstarlets, cam girls, adult models; webmasters and webmistresses of paysites coming together and bringing a class action lawsuit.
Don't you mean ass action lawsuit? lololol
RichardNailder
Approved Content Owner
If it weren't for the downloaders then uploading, hosting and paying huge bandwidth bills wouldn't be profitable.
It's the user who creates the need for a pipeline not the other way around.
Don't create the pipeline. Addicts want drugs, so it's their fault people give it to them? WTF kind of logic is that? Downloaders have nothing to download if uploaders don't upload.
RichardNailder
Approved Content Owner
Someone needs some drugs
But uploaders wouldn't upload if downloaders didn't spend millions on "faster downloads", making the theft profitable.
Both parties are involved in the crime.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I've read through all ten pages of this back-and-forth, finding it frequently goes right back to where it started. I.e., there isn't much new to be said. I personally stand by the distinction I and many have made between theft and piracy: that one deprives the owner of property and the other does not. Does that make piracy right? No. But neither, as pointed out by 24 Grams does breaking the law equate to wrong:
To put it another way: I see downloading as a victimless crime. If I download your film, photoshoot, book, CD, you lose absolutely nothing. You can thump your chest and point out how something for nothing is stealing all you want, but you still have lost nothing - and it isn't something for nothing. I had to pay for the tools to be able to copy it - the computer and the like. Different only in scale to, say, acquiring the tools to build my own Mercedes or make my own potato chips/Hershey bar. But I must digress, because scale is important to a discussion about pragmatic responses to piracy if not moral ones (as somebody pointed out, there's a big legal difference between theft and grand theft - if not morally). Uploading is of course another matter, but as STDiva and papagmp are discussing, you won't get one without the other.
Regardless, piracy is here to stay. Welcome to the digital internet age. The ability to near-infinitely and effortlessly copy and transfer media to everyone has changed how businesses need to function to survive. It's given the media establishments unprecedented opportunity as well as challenges, and they've largely failed to step up to either. Plainly put, the old media business models have to change to survive. Legal action against sites one after another will not stop piracy. As it has been pointed out by many posters, take one down and two more will come in. The internet is simply too big. The only options I see are to evolve your business model to create a demand despite the availability of freely pirated material.
The movie industry has cinema showings (which brings in millions for the big Hollywood titles, but provides plenty of following for independent films as well).
The video game industry seems to be doing very well with subscription-based online multiplay; while games themselves are always susceptible to piracy, services like Xbox Live, Battle.net, and Steam offer their experience only while connected which allows them to screen out the pirated copies.
The book industry - the newest addition to the digital frontier - has a lot less options. Live book readings certainly aren't a pragmatic solution; but appropriate pricing can still keep demand high - just look at this independent author who sold over a million copies priced at 99 cents.
Music of course has concerts, gigs and the like. Not to mention great success with Apple's music store (which features an incredible amount of media priced at, once again, 99 cents).
As for porn...well, there are plenty in this thread alone that might have much better ideas on how to evolve the industry to synergize with today's technology than I. But evolve it must, or the problem with piracy will only get bigger.
To put it another way: I see downloading as a victimless crime. If I download your film, photoshoot, book, CD, you lose absolutely nothing. You can thump your chest and point out how something for nothing is stealing all you want, but you still have lost nothing - and it isn't something for nothing. I had to pay for the tools to be able to copy it - the computer and the like. Different only in scale to, say, acquiring the tools to build my own Mercedes or make my own potato chips/Hershey bar. But I must digress, because scale is important to a discussion about pragmatic responses to piracy if not moral ones (as somebody pointed out, there's a big legal difference between theft and grand theft - if not morally). Uploading is of course another matter, but as STDiva and papagmp are discussing, you won't get one without the other.
Regardless, piracy is here to stay. Welcome to the digital internet age. The ability to near-infinitely and effortlessly copy and transfer media to everyone has changed how businesses need to function to survive. It's given the media establishments unprecedented opportunity as well as challenges, and they've largely failed to step up to either. Plainly put, the old media business models have to change to survive. Legal action against sites one after another will not stop piracy. As it has been pointed out by many posters, take one down and two more will come in. The internet is simply too big. The only options I see are to evolve your business model to create a demand despite the availability of freely pirated material.
The movie industry has cinema showings (which brings in millions for the big Hollywood titles, but provides plenty of following for independent films as well).
The video game industry seems to be doing very well with subscription-based online multiplay; while games themselves are always susceptible to piracy, services like Xbox Live, Battle.net, and Steam offer their experience only while connected which allows them to screen out the pirated copies.
The book industry - the newest addition to the digital frontier - has a lot less options. Live book readings certainly aren't a pragmatic solution; but appropriate pricing can still keep demand high - just look at this independent author who sold over a million copies priced at 99 cents.
Music of course has concerts, gigs and the like. Not to mention great success with Apple's music store (which features an incredible amount of media priced at, once again, 99 cents).
As for porn...well, there are plenty in this thread alone that might have much better ideas on how to evolve the industry to synergize with today's technology than I. But evolve it must, or the problem with piracy will only get bigger.
Similar threads
