Anti Piracy Day

Discussion in 'File Sharing' started by w31n3r, Oct 22, 2008.

This thread is being watched by 6 users.
  1. w31n3r

    w31n3r Zeropaid Irregular Established Member

    and Microsoft loved us so much, that it set forth a special day to remember our hard labors by. well...not exactly,

    anti piracy day? has hallmark got any cards out for this? why wasn't i invited to this event? you'd think they'd at least inform us. not that you can blame them. they are, after all, losing $50 Billion annually to software piracy, almost enough to buy bill gates a new tie.

    a silly thought, but if the worlds greatest software could cost a little less, maybe instead of losing so much money (sic), they'd make a few billion more :icon_scra
  2. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Reality is, when you have a monopoly, and you price your product outside the price range of certain consumers, they will pirate it. Its not a real loss because if it were not for their monopoly they would never even have that customer as a potential client. Still their attempt to get public support for an anti societal measure is humorous. Its like having a dictatorship day, to celebrate the removal of civil rights.
  3. thelastfreeman

    thelastfreeman Amateur Proctologist Established Member

    This day is a joke. They would have more success by going after the Somali pirates plundering booty on the high seas.

    RACKnRAIL 今は知っているでしょ Staff Member Moderator

    Shit, I missed that one. Had I known I would have downloaded Vista and then deleted it.
    1 person likes this.
  5. thepuzzler

    thepuzzler parp Established Member
    1 person likes this.
  6. El Comandante

    El Comandante Merde! Established Member

    MS is an enormous company. It costs them nothing to try to raise awareness although these half ass efforts demonstrate that they simply want to keep the problem manageable.

    Say what you will about Microsoft being a cut throat monopoly and itself built on piracy of other peoples work...... Gates, on the other hand, is a great humanitarian IMHO. They guy is giving away billions..... nothing wrong with that...
  7. Drew Wilson

    Drew Wilson AKA IceCube Staff Member Moderator Contributor

    They should have called it "International Propaganda Day" to be more accurate.

    Still, though, companies like Adobe have been known for being a monopoly as well. Microsoft is just the most well known monopoly. I'm sure you can think of other monopolies like the RIAA and the big four record labels colluding to fix the prixes of CDs at retail stores.
  8. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    The Fair Market No Longer Exists

    That (your quote) was once the case, although debatable, but now its simply a clear case of its easy and convenient. It also saves loads of money too. I know most of us could afford at least 2 or 3 CDs/DVDs a month but choose the illegal way not because we are trying to prove a point or we care (yeah right) about artists rights but solely and only for the reason we are greedy and want it all without having to work to obtain these items. Once people had to budget their entertainment dollar and now they don't. Thats NOT a winning formula for the consumer in the end. The pay off is big at first but will dwindle with time as the funds of that market slow.

    People may hate others who earn more than they do and justify pirating in this manner but when the tale is told, these people are earning a living and its their jobs we are fucking with. And I'm not saying I am innocent or of at times feeling vindictive towards the MPAA/RIAA for doing their clients dirty work but I can understand it. These institutions are merely trying to protect their earnings of the share holders and themselves. They are standing on fundamental rights giving to them by the founding fathers of our nation. If anyone feels like not paying for the software then don't. Let the market hash it out. When people say they can change the law by breaking it the matter becomes a horse of a different color.

    Not to be trite but this quote fits:

    "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly." Thomas Paine
  9. shawners

    shawners Hurt no more my son.

    Thats good.. To celebrate. Ill burn midnight club 3, fable 2, gears of war 2.. And FAR CRY 2.. So when my wife goes to choir tonight. Ill have good choices on what to play =)
    THIS IS for you MS.

    I can tell your not married. Here is the point.
    "Hey honey, theres a game i like to spend 60 bucks on and buy. I know i could easily download it but i want to support the game developers."

    "Okay honey but your going to have to buy me something thats just as equally expensive."

    The other way it could go out.
    I buy it, she sees it and yells at me for not discussing the issue of buying something for myself and not for my family.

    And i get in the dog house.
    So 60 dollars could easily double.. So pirating is the way to do it.
    Queue it up on newsleecher. Come home from work, unrar it.. Burn it. And play it later. No going to the store, no sales tax, no waiting in line or using my debit card. Just not a lot of Bullshit.
  10. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    And there you have it! lol

    Buck up and admit that you only download because youre a cheap bastard like me. I'm killing the movie industry and youre killing the Video Game market. We are both super cool.
  11. shawners

    shawners Hurt no more my son.

    Stay away from midnight club L.A. Glitchy and buggy. During game play, the car sinks in to the ground and some of the artifacts stays still on the screen after you passed it.. I hope they release a patch to fix it, otherwise i wont be playing it again.
  12. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Is it really that great of a deed. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful he does spend some of his money for the greater good. But when you have billions more, is it really that hard to make large donations? To be honest, he doesn't strike me as anything special. Someone with 80 000$ a year salary donating 10 000$ seems like a much more significant and applaudable act in my opinionl.

    Well first off, I'm using a purchased copy of Vista, but thats only because the alternatives are not compatible with the majority of games. We could have fair competition if copyright laws were written differently. If I could run the majority of software on another cheaper platform, I would. Even now I've attempted to switch to Linux, but I'm tied to Microsoft for a few key pieces of software. Is this right, no, so allot of people in my situation pirate their software. You and I both know that politicians have shown their cards and are not interested in the consumers interest, so like with other idiotic laws that went against the will of society, we choose to ignore it as our form of protest. Lumping everyone into your reasoning for file sharing is just as miss guided as me stating everyone is doing it on principle. They are all real reason why people pirate copyrighted content.

    Should people be able to make a living off their work? Of course. Should we automatically bow down to all copyright enforcers demands simply so they can make the living they feel they deserve, of course not. The laws have been hijacked in their favor, and as such consumers are the ones at a disadvantage. Its even gotten to the point where they are allowing the copyrighting of DNA strains. That is a natural occurrence, how the hell can you justify that? What would happen if I have the strain and it turns out they need to treat it, will that be infringement? If we continue on your logic, they should be allowed to make a profit on their research right? I mean their work discovered the DNA strain. The point I'm trying to make is everything has a limit, and at some point the lines have to be drawn. When you are given extra rights that afford a monopoly, than their should be a balanced law that prevents you from exploiting consumers with it.

    You have gotten on your high horse before to proclaim that filesharing is done because people are cheap. Like all other times it just struck me as an asanine comment. Sure some people do fileshare for financial reasons, but stating it the way you see it is oversimplyfying a complex issue. One that has many view points, issues and reasonings. If you start to look at copyright not as a product, but as the right to ideas you may start to understand the problems and complexities. If you look at how our herritage, history and many others have been only possible due to the lack of such laws than you might start to realize that maybe monetizing such things isn't the right way to do things.
  13. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    Please do not take offense, I believe in being a straight shooter.

    You see, I find this very narcissistic. Its as if some people think the world owes them "things" and they want it now. This self sense of entitlement is NOT how the real world works. Only in a cyberspace world of make believe can people act like a child and somewhat get away with it.

    Do you believe everyone should break a law they want to change? Lobby your congressman and tell him you would like to take away some peoples rights because they inconvenience you and you don't really feel like working harder to obtain more "stuff". Good luck with that campaign. See if you can get me free internet too because I'm very tired of paying for it. That would be a cool sweetener.

    I feel I am a realist. I respect the rights of others as long as they do not physically harm me or others. That being said, with all due respect, I am still going to take what I want because I'm a complete bastard. Most people think that they are only hurting the bad corporations so its all okay. That is not the case. Nor is it right to take away anyones right to make a living because you feel that they're bastards for wanting too much for their product. Let the market decide WITHOUT taking away their rights to their work. This is the fair market. The only reason this is even up for debate is because people have found a way to circumvent the system without much fear of getting punished. Thats it. Its not about helping the artists or any other bull I have seen people post. Its about helping ourselves to free products. Im sorry if this is too logical or ruins peoples good time but be real. Lets not lie to ourselves about our actions to make us feel better. It is what it is.

    Eroding profits will only hurt the consumer or the working man. No one wants to invest big money into a commodity that can easily be stolen. Cuts must be made.

    I can see both sides of the argument but to be frank, taking away anyone's rights is not something I am willing to do for my own personal gain. I don't think this is a high horse attitude because at the end of the day I am still pirating almost every piece of software I own. I just don't delude myself with some delusions of Grandeur where somehow I am freeing the market for the peoples own good. I know where I stand. I'm cheap, I am greedy and I have extra cash to spend on hookers and beer.

    EDIT: As far as DNA goes that is a completely different matter and does not apply to this debate. Its apples and oranges. I will say that researching genetics is very expensive. If some corporation can make big money while feeding the world let them go ahead and get paid for it. With out going much further I will say that feeding the world carries a lot more weight than some fat ass only wanting a free copy of WoW. I could see fighting for limits on this type (food) of copyrights. I'm sure this should fall under a Patent right and all patents of this nature usually have limitations.

    I'm not sure if youre saying they are copyrighting people and fruit that grow naturally. I would like to hear about it if they are doing this or not. (perhaps in a different thread) Sounds strange and interesting.
  14. Mrs Robinson

    Mrs Robinson Member

    Anti Anti-Piracy Day

    I think Zeropaid should hold an Anti Anti-Piracy Day.

    We all could target school kids with information about how good it is to copy and innovate. Tell them about p2p and how safe it is. Show them the wide selection of films, TV progs and music out there and that there is more to watch and listen to the "High School Musical".
  15. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Here Mels, turns out I was mistaken DNA is being patented not Copyrighted. Although a company is trying to create a DNA copyright, not sure how that would work if you're a twin. Patents have gotten just as ridiculous as copyright in my opinion. Both are now at a point of stifling innovation, rather than encouraging and fostering it. They don't have to be eliminated but rights need to be relaxed.

    As for your argument of artist being allowed to make a living, and that its a free market. Well its not a free market because there is a lock on what compositions people can use to create their music, and its continually being minimized. It wouldn't surprise me if you analyzed the worlds catalog of music that allot unknowingly break someone else's copyright (trying to find the research article from a professor at my university that backs this up). If I took a server farm and generated every single tune, filled them all for copyright, should I then have the right to sue all new artists? How about people on youtube who are singing their favorite artists song, should they be sued, or should youtube be sued? Those bastards are breaking copyright and not respecting the authors right to make a profit right? How about Joe the wanna be plumber, if he is listening to his boombox at work should be be sued for not getting a license for public performance? Again he is breaking copyright and by your logic breaking the authors rights under current laws. How about singing happy birthday at a party, breaking copyright law. Happy birthday is owned by Warner music, so by singing it you are breaking their copyright. My point is the laws don't reflect reality. You also can't simply say you are removing authors rights, because those rights are in fact limiting the rights of others. So I could argue that I want to give back consumers some rights. Even better are the artist fighting against new copyright laws and more consumer rights, can't argue that they are one sided in the debate.
    1 person likes this.
  16. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    While you're sorta sticking to the subject, you are still all over the place. Do you want copyright reform or do you want to abolish copyright? This is a very tricky, slippery slope and I hope you read this oh so long post in its entirety.

    If all copy rights are abolished then all hell breaks loose. File sharing will be free game but any artist wanting to make a living is screwed. How so, you ask. (or perhaps you said bullshit, whatever) Here is a scenario.

    Say that you're a Bruce Springsteen fan and you just can't wait for his new joint to drop so you can download and share it with friends. But I decide I want to call my new CD Bruce Springsteen too. You download it and I sound like pure shit and now you hate Bruce Springsteen and you vow to never see another Bruce Springsteen concert and you throw away your Bruce Springsteen tee shirt's. Well the real Bruce Springsteen is just SOL. His name and product is now just a little more worthless than it already is. This applies to DVD and software too. How do you control quality and such if their are no longer any rules that can be enforced.

    Copyright Reform

    This is the part no one in the P2P community EVER talks about because no one is really concerned with actually changing anything. They just know they want free stuff. I think a balance can be achieved if people are willing to follow a few not so simple rules.

    The market must change to accommodate P2P and people must be willing to accommodate the laws that protect peoples rights to their work. Both are real tuffies. I think legal P2P can flourish and make artists rich if thats how they wish to market their product. I also think its perfectly fine if an artists wants to market their product under the existing laws if they fear their music might be misused in some manner.

    An artist who chooses to use P2P will likely see a lot more profit if they can directly touch their fans by using the net as an outlet for distribution, as some artists have already tried. There still needs to be some aspects of copyrights left intact such as their name, logo and such but thats obvious. If these artists can direct their fans to their own site and ask donations for downloads, give info on concerts, sell their tee-shirts and whatever then they stand to eventually develop their own business model. This is how new artists should market themselves IMO. Myspace is a good step in the right direction.

    But what about old music? Should there be limits to the amount of time an artist can hold onto their copyrights. I think everyone would say yes to this. Thats how I feel but I think the limit should be until they are dead and gone. Its too bad most artists sell off their rights to the big labels so they can party hearty and gack coke all night long. I don't know how to feel about this practice but it actually doesn't matter how I feel. Thats their choice and theyre free to snort up their entire catalog if they wish to do so.

    Sorry I am rambling on here, I took my medication too early tonight so its hard to keep focused as usual. lol I have debated this subject so long I have logical counter points for any issue than can be brought up as long as we stick to intellectual copyright laws. Throwing in all the other issues of copyrights like DNA only deludes and confuses the real issues that need to be addressed although I do find DNA copyright a very interesting issue. I will definitely look into that and perhaps start a thread about it after I read up on it.

    Debate is always good as long as people are willing to hear each other without getting mad. I have faced so many people that actually get mad and call me names for having an opinion about P2P. I find most people are unwilling to think about anyone else but themselves so most of the time the debate is useless. I like to hear peoples thoughts about this subject that are willing to give an intelligent, thought provoking opinion. You're one of the few people I would even bother to address with a post this long anymore. I know a play a tard 99% of the time at ZP but I hope you also respect my opinion as much I do yours. I can provide a somewhat coherent reply if I concentrate real hard although it gives me a migraine. I must go now before this post gets any longer.:icon_salu
  17. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    Shit. I made that rambling post and did not address some of the aspects of your argument, although I do not feel all your issues strictly pertain to P2P. I am not going back and edit/reformat that long post so I will talk about the Youtube issue you mentioned in this please forgive the double posties.

    Youtube is a money making business and as such any copyright holder should have a say so in how his work is used and presented. If they feel its fine and let it be thats their call but if this right is taken away then all their rights are gone.

    Say Steven Spielberg wants to use the same song in his new POS movie. If Youtube is allowed to make money by letting anyone post and broadcast an artists music contained in their home movie then Mr Spielberg should be able to use their song how he see's fit too without asking permission.

    I am not sure anyone has been sued for listening to music so I will not address the Joe Plumber scenario. A public performance where money is earned solely by singing someone elses songs is an issue a copyright holder has the right to address.

    Singing Happy Birthday is also not breaking the law. Making money on Happy Birthday is. Please do not get carried away.

    And lastly, artist suing other artists because one song resembles another. Some lawsuits are seemingly justified and some are ludicrous. This sorta falls back to my last post. Are you willing to dismiss all the lawsuits or are you willing to hear each one on a case by case basis? If the right to pursue being ripped off is suspended then its open market on everyone's work to claim as an original piece of work.

    Its not as cut and dry as some make it seem. Taking away one aspect of a persons right can directly affect another. Each must be look at and scrutinized. I can't agree and justify every aspect of the copyright laws either and thats not what I set out to debate. I hope you see the differences.
  18. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    I most definitely respect your opinion Mels, and I love a good debate. If you want to discuss music copyright exclusively, then I'll focus on music.

    First off, artists name and logo is a trademark not a copyright. I fully support trademark laws, they are one of the few I.P. laws that help protect both consumer and owner. Trademarks allow the consumer the ability to identify a reliable company, and the owner the ability to market itself. Trademarks are well conceived and should be left the way they are.

    Now on the topic of musical copyright. There are quite a few different issues with musical copyright, and quite a few ways of fixing it. Lets start with what music is and how its essence is affected by copyright.

    Music is a structured assembly of sounds. If a composition is good, the sounds blend together and is pleasant to the listener. Psychologically good music follows a mathematical pattern, and in theory the more you deviate from these patterns, the worse your music will sound. There is a professor at my university that heavily studied the patterns of music, and computer aids that utilize these patterns for composing. There was an interview where he talked about how we are soon going to reach a limit to the variations we can achieve with current techniques, and his goal is to find new ways of composing. He even argued that artist are heavily influenced by other artists work and in fact they copy each other all the time. He did not touch on the idea of copyright reform, but clearly he understood music has limited variations.

    So I'm sure you will find all this information interesting but what the hell does it have to do with copyright. Well copyright is in itself the right of an author to control their work. But from what I understand music in its nature is limited in how much variation it can have, its not just random sounds. Even more informative is how its created and how individuals are influenced by other artists work. Now what concerns me with this in relation to copyright is that we are limiting creativity and new artists under copyright. Here is an example. If an artist comes along and writes music, only to find its breaking copyright they are out of luck. It does not matter if they did created their own music on their own, someone else owns the copyright. So current laws prevents him from going any further with his work. It could be just a small part of their song that copies another work, does not matter. Either the artist would have to change his vision to accommodate the law, or not play it at all. This in my opinion is one of the biggest problems with copyright.

    Now in my opinion there is a simple way of fixing this issue, and its not mind blowing either. During its inception I believe copyright had a 20 year term. Now its at 70 years beyond an artists death. Why have we extended copyright to such a astounding length, do we really need it to span 8 generations? well it was believed that the extra time would benefit the artists as well as the label. But a recent study refutes that and shows that after 20 years most copyright generates very little profit to the point of it being almost negligible. So I say revert copyright terms back to 20 years, which would open up a huge catalog to the public, and to artists. Even more favorable in my opinion, but possibly less balanced would be to put no limit on performance of copyrighted works and only limit the tune, or even the carbon copy of the artist work. So only the artist recorded performance would be protected. The original artist would still have the ability to sell their version exclusively, they could still perform it and build a market force with their recognition. The only real difference is that another artist could outshine them with a better compilation, but thats how a normal capitalist market works. This would not only solve the first problem I mentioned of limited variations, but it would also give more competition to the industry and push prices to a more logical level. It would also make social performances, such as the case the singing of happy birthday, or youtube performances legal solving another major issue with copyright laws.

    Anyway I need some sleep, I'll review what I wrote in the morning. I still intend on touching on consumer rights, filesharing and maybe a couple other issues. Also I should touch on why people are not necessarily cheap.
  19. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    Youre right about the trademark, my mistake. The logistics are so similar its easy to get off track, as you did in your previous post. I hope you saw my additional post on your other points. Trademarking a word or phrase. You agree with that but not copyrighting a song? Hmmmm. I find it funny that you agree with some I.P rights that benifit you and disagree with other rights that hamper your ability to get work for free. How is this not greed? To call the big labels greedy and then not be able to admit ones own greed is hypocritical IMO.

    I did not want to actually debate all the aspects of copyright law at all. What I wanted to debate is how people view P2P as having no legal bounds. The deep subject of copyright laws would take months to debate properly and I just don't have the energy, desire or motivation to do that. Sorry lol

    I felt the need to address some of your points though so you did not think I was ignoring them.

    P.S. I agree with some of your points in your last post but again, its not the debate I had in mind. I am glad you took the time to analyze this complex issue and it was a good read. There are many gray areas that are hard to form a definitive, all encompassing blanket opinion on. At least for me.

    Damn it. I can't stop editing this. Going back to your last post about limiting an artists rights to control a song they wrote by letting anyone take it for free and make money with it. I don't see any benefit in this for the artist at all. Sure, again you see a benefit in it for you. Is this going to be the gist of all your points? What is best for you only? If an artist can write and sing their own work thats what makes them special. I don't really have as much respect for a singer who can't write. Theyre monkeys IMO.
  20. SEY

    SEY Member

    PFFT. wow. =)

Share This Page