The Pirate Bay Blocked in the UK.

[Drought]

You're jumping to conclusions, making assumptions absent any real information.

In your words, aren't you assuming the same ?
Fact is, several large companies have been taken down and their owners taken to court.
Megaupload for instance.
Sites like piratebay are getting blocked.

Thats some of my proof .. now some of yours please

[Jack]

Your proof is that the government shows favoritism to large corporations? The only thing it proves is that the industry giants successfully lobbied the government to do their bidding.

A Cracked.com article is a better source of evidence than "because the government is coming down on piracy."

[[KMA]Avenger]

Policing Freedom..... now there's an oxymoron for you lol

Extremely poor choice of words...especially from me

[Drought]

Your proof is that the government shows favoritism to large corporations? The only thing it proves is that the industry giants successfully lobbied the government to do their bidding.

A Cracked.com article is a better source of evidence than "because the government is coming down on piracy."

well then ... would a court ruling where it states they broke the law be proof ?

The trial started on 16 February 2009 in the district court (tingsrätt) of Stockholm, Sweden. The hearings ended on 3 March 2009 and the verdict was announced at 11:00 AM on Friday 17 April 2009: Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were all found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (about €2.7 million or US$3.5 million).[6] All the defendants appealed the verdict, and in November 2010 the appeal court shortened the prison sentences, but increased damages.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial

Verdict is that they indeed broke copyright infringement laws.
Now check the compensation bit at the bottom and tell me again it did not hurt any industry would they have not gotten those amounts ?

[Kit-Fox]

Yes they would have got those kinds of damages against them without any major damage to the industry as the courts will want to send a message saying 'this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, do it & we'll try to break you'


Having said that piracy does hurt industry (all of them, music, film, software etc etc) the issue isnt whether or not it hurts them really, the issue is by how much and is the amount the industry is hurt by worth taking action over??

After all a loss of 100 retail sales on a product that sells 4 million copies is nothing to be concerned about & might cost more than its worth to chase down the pirates

But a loss of 3 million retail sales on the same product, would affect the bottom line and make taking action worthwhile.

[MEZZANINE]

Yes they would have got those kinds of damages against them without any major damage to the industry as the courts will want to send a message saying 'this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, do it & we'll try to break you'


Having said that piracy does hurt industry (all of them, music, film, software etc etc) the issue isnt whether or not it hurts them really, the issue is by how much and is the amount the industry is hurt by worth taking action over??

After all a loss of 100 retail sales on a product that sells 4 million copies is nothing to be concerned about & might cost more than its worth to chase down the pirates

But a loss of 3 million retail sales on the same product, would affect the bottom line and make taking action worthwhile.

Yes the 'Loss of Sales' argument, should have soon that one coming, but is it true ? Certainly not in my case, of most I suspect


If I download a movie the people who made that movie lose nothing, why, because rich people dont download to save themselves a few £££s or $$$s, poorer people who cant afford the prices of buying/renting/cinema all the time download.

1 Million downloads does NOT mean 1 million lost sales because the vast majority of those 1 million would still NOT buy even if they had not downloaded.

Also in cases like my own, if I watch a truly excellent movie on download or listen to a sweet album, one that I would want to watch or listen to again & again, and have in my collection, I would still buy it later when the prices had come down. If I had not downloaded it, I might never have known how good it was and therefore never bought it...... so downloads actually get me to buy DVD and CDs.

[Drought]

Bottom line it is hurting the sellers, which directly effects their sales profit, resulting in an industry being hurt. Though not much, to some, to others it surely does.

Just think of:
Low budget film producers
Up start musicians
Up start software companies

Though some of the file trafficking can be seen as free advertisement, but certain parts of these branches rely heavily on how they start and what income/profit they can make form their product.

Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Virgin, MGM, their losses might be minimal, and not really hurting them ... but consider the costs they have on the legal area, to ensure their copyright is good and uphold. Lawyers, lawsuits against copyright infringement. Massive amounts of costs and time to safeguard their product. These costs run into the millions ....

It is not up to us to judge whether or not these parties "Make enough money from their product, so its fine as they wont feel it in their wallet" ..... how about if simply EVERYONE does that .... they would not make a single dime.

So yes, it hurts the industry a lot more then some of you want to realize.
The scare tactics and lawsuits are all part of it to prevent that EVERYONE does it ...

[Kit-Fox]

Yes they would have got those kinds of damages against them without any major damage to the industry as the courts will want to send a message saying 'this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, do it & we'll try to break you'


Having said that piracy does hurt industry (all of them, music, film, software etc etc) the issue isnt whether or not it hurts them really, the issue is by how much and is the amount the industry is hurt by worth taking action over??

After all a loss of 100 retail sales on a product that sells 4 million copies is nothing to be concerned about & might cost more than its worth to chase down the pirates

But a loss of 3 million retail sales on the same product, would affect the bottom line and make taking action worthwhile.

Yes the 'Loss of Sales' argument, should have soon that one coming, but is it true ? Certainly not in my case, of most I suspect


If I download a movie the people who made that movie lose nothing, why, because rich people dont download to save themselves a few £££s or $$$s, poorer people who cant afford the prices of buying/renting/cinema all the time download.

1 Million downloads does NOT mean 1 million lost sales because the vast majority of those 1 million would still NOT buy even if they had not downloaded.

Also in cases like my own, if I watch a truly excellent movie on download or listen to a sweet album, one that I would want to watch or listen to again & again, and have in my collection, I would still buy it later when the prices had come down. If I had not downloaded it, I might never have known how good it was and therefore never bought it...... so downloads actually get me to buy DVD and CDs.

Well yes its not a perfect argument and of course each illegal digital copy doesnt equate to a lost retail sale I agree.

But you'll note Mezz, that I did indeed ask, does the harm the industry suffers from require the responses we've seen from them so far?

[lone dragon]

Yes they would have got those kinds of damages against them without any major damage to the industry as the courts will want to send a message saying 'this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, do it & we'll try to break you'


Having said that piracy does hurt industry (all of them, music, film, software etc etc) the issue isnt whether or not it hurts them really, the issue is by how much and is the amount the industry is hurt by worth taking action over??

After all a loss of 100 retail sales on a product that sells 4 million copies is nothing to be concerned about & might cost more than its worth to chase down the pirates

But a loss of 3 million retail sales on the same product, would affect the bottom line and make taking action worthwhile.

Yes the 'Loss of Sales' argument, should have soon that one coming, but is it true ? Certainly not in my case, of most I suspect


If I download a movie the people who made that movie lose nothing, why, because rich people dont download to save themselves a few £££s or $$$s, poorer people who cant afford the prices of buying/renting/cinema all the time download.

1 Million downloads does NOT mean 1 million lost sales because the vast majority of those 1 million would still NOT buy even if they had not downloaded.

Also in cases like my own, if I watch a truly excellent movie on download or listen to a sweet album, one that I would want to watch or listen to again & again, and have in my collection, I would still buy it later when the prices had come down. If I had not downloaded it, I might never have known how good it was and therefore never bought it...... so downloads actually get me to buy DVD and CDs.

There is also an argument for certain places do not have access to legal copies or have no accessto get certain movies that may be wanted which are no longer sold. So if it s not accessible due to age of movie or country restrictions what choices do you have, oh and certain things you cant even get on amazon or ebay.

[Jack]

well then ... would a court ruling where it states they broke the law be proof ?

No, if I carried my handgun openly, as in not concealed, I'd be breaking the law. But that doesn't mean I shot anyone.

Verdict is that they indeed broke copyright infringement laws.
Now check the compensation bit at the bottom and tell me again it did not hurt any industry would they have not gotten those amounts ?

Compensation doesn't mean anything. There have been outrageously huge compensations awarded to copyright holders in the U.S., but atleast some of those verdicts were overturned on the basis that they were unconstitutional. For them to be unconstitutional, then the damages awarded would have to far exceed the real damages suffered. There have been a number of judges lately, that have stated that damages can not even be assessed.

Bottom line it is hurting the sellers, which directly effects their sales profit, resulting in an industry being hurt. Though not much, to some, to others it surely does.

Once again, you offer a conclusion without any valid evidence.

Just think of:
Low budget film producers
Up start musicians
Up start software companies

I haven't seen any cases where a start up was driven out of business due to piracy. I have, however, seen stories where the opposite is true, that because of piracy, they ended up with a lot more paying customers.

Though some of the file trafficking can be seen as free advertisement, but certain parts of these branches rely heavily on how they start and what income/profit they can make form their product.

If they choose to use a bad business model, then that is their own fault. They need to assess the market and decide which business model will best suit their needs.

Companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Virgin, MGM, their losses might be minimal, and not really hurting them ... but consider the costs they have on the legal area, to ensure their copyright is good and uphold. Lawyers, lawsuits against copyright infringement. Massive amounts of costs and time to safeguard their product. These costs run into the millions ....

If they choose to spend more money than they lose/make by chasing pirates, that is their own fault.

It is not up to us to judge whether or not these parties "Make enough money from their product, so its fine as they wont feel it in their wallet" ..... how about if simply EVERYONE does that .... they would not make a single dime.

Logical fallacy that falls flat on it's face when introduced to reality. The fact of the matter is, most people can choose to exclusively pirate all of their chosen media, but they do not.

So yes, it hurts the industry a lot more then some of you want to realize.
The scare tactics and lawsuits are all part of it to prevent that EVERYONE does it ...

Once again, you're introducing a conclusion without any real evidence whatsoever to back it up. All you have are assumptions and theories based on faulty logic.

[MEZZANINE]

Just a note for anyone not aware, the Sony SpyStation actually reports you to Sony via the internet every time you try to play pirate copies then prevents you watching them by blocking the audio, Sony are gathering data from these reports but have not yet acted on them.

[Drought]

Your intentionally ignorant though, Dovahkiin ... It may look like faulty logic if you want to look at it like that.
Why on earth would on almost every digital product be legal copyright protections .... for fun ?

[Kit-Fox]

Just a note for anyone not aware, the Sony SpyStation actually reports you to Sony via the internet every time you try to play pirate copies then prevents you watching them by blocking the audio, Sony are gathering data from these reports but have not yet acted on them.

There is no clear empirical evidence that Sony are using the PS3 to spy on its users, or that its recording when users playback 'illegal copies' of films.


Also the method of preventing sound playback does not require an active connection between you & Sony, its a DRM system that uses software to look for audio signatures which are obviously pre-known and uploaded to the PS3 as system updates etc.

[Jack]

Your intentionally ignorant though, Dovahkiin ... It may look like faulty logic if you want to look at it like that.
Why on earth would on almost every digital product be legal copyright protections .... for fun ?

How about maybe because the DRM industry sold them on the idea that they must have DRM to protect their property? You do realize that these companies purchase their DRM solutions from other companies, right?

You still haven't provided any evidence. Only claims based on faulty logic. "Well, they take X action, so it must be true!"

There are so many other reasons why they could go to such great lengths to include DRM solutions. One would be to combat renting and used game sales, which has nothing to do with piracy and both practices are very much legal.

[Drought]

How about maybe because the DRM industry sold them on the idea that they must have DRM to protect their property? You do realize that these companies purchase their DRM solutions from other companies, right?

You still haven't provided any evidence. Only claims based on faulty logic. "Well, they take X action, so it must be true!"

There are so many other reasons why they could go to such great lengths to include DRM solutions. One would be to combat renting and used game sales, which has nothing to do with piracy and both practices are very much legal.

Copy right infringement with downloading existed before drm.

But nvm really, you just believe what you want to believe, so will I, I do believe that downloading illegal goods hurts the ones who produced and try to sell it or make profit of it. Not that I care much for it, but saying otherwise is plain ignorance, and sure, ask for scientific proof of a couple 1000 people being guinea pigged with question by some turd in a tie, which eventually hands in his results, -being a scientific statistic which represents entire industries.