Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - David Lowery Blasts NPR Intern On File-Sharing

psyang · 06-26-2012, 05:03 PM

[This turned out to be a bit of a ramble, sorry]

Those who know me know I have a strong stance against piracy. I am a software developer, so software piracy affects me personally. I'm very careful that any software I use is legally obtained, whether purchased or free. For example, I am the only one in my circle of family/friends/acquaintances that I know of who has a paid-for license for WinZip.

For me, this extends naturally to digital entertainment. Music and movies are not a right. Just because one is able to get high quality free music/movies doesn't mean one should (I just made a similar argument in the absent senator thread). There are little or no repercussions for piracy, but it doesn't make it right. And that, ultimately, is what matters most in this issue - what is right.

A friend of mine tried to argue that the HBO series Game of Thrones was not available for purchase, and so they pirated them. He felt he had some God-given right to watch the show, and it was HBO's fault for not allowing him to watch it when he wanted to. Even worse, I believe that the series (at least the first few seasons) is now available for purchase, but my friend won't buy them since he already watched those series, and the price was too high for him regardless.

So it's no surprise that I agree completely with the article. One point the author alludes to but doesn't explicitly raise is that the cost of reproducing a song or a movie is almost nil, without any sacrifice in quality. This has effectively taken any semblance of control away from the media creator - it's impossible for an artist to ensure only paying customers have access to their high-quality music.

I really liked the author's point that forces beyond sites like Pirate Bay (including computer manufacturers, ISPs, and search engines like Google) directly/indirectly benefit from piracy.

Unfortunately, there's no easy way to enforce measures that will prevent piracy, even without the many forces directly/indirectly profiting from piracy. The only case where things worked out in a fair/just manner (as far as I can tell) is Louis C.K.'s recent live concert that he released. $5, no DRM, and he made over a million dollars (of which a large chunk went to various charities). But there was no legislation - only his plea that people not pirate, and an acceptance by the consumers to honor that plea.

So a world without piracy can exist in a fair/equitable way, but it requires a massive change in how people perceive and, more importantly, respect the industry and the artists.

06-26-2012, 05:03 PM	#5
psyang Powerplay Quarterback Join Date: Jan 2010 Exp:	[This turned out to be a bit of a ramble, sorry] Those who know me know I have a strong stance against piracy. I am a software developer, so software piracy affects me personally. I'm very careful that any software I use is legally obtained, whether purchased or free. For example, I am the only one in my circle of family/friends/acquaintances that I know of who has a paid-for license for WinZip. For me, this extends naturally to digital entertainment. Music and movies are not a right. Just because one is able to get high quality free music/movies doesn't mean one should (I just made a similar argument in the absent senator thread). There are little or no repercussions for piracy, but it doesn't make it right. And that, ultimately, is what matters most in this issue - what is right. A friend of mine tried to argue that the HBO series Game of Thrones was not available for purchase, and so they pirated them. He felt he had some God-given right to watch the show, and it was HBO's fault for not allowing him to watch it when he wanted to. Even worse, I believe that the series (at least the first few seasons) is now available for purchase, but my friend won't buy them since he already watched those series, and the price was too high for him regardless. So it's no surprise that I agree completely with the article. One point the author alludes to but doesn't explicitly raise is that the cost of reproducing a song or a movie is almost nil, without any sacrifice in quality. This has effectively taken any semblance of control away from the media creator - it's impossible for an artist to ensure only paying customers have access to their high-quality music. I really liked the author's point that forces beyond sites like Pirate Bay (including computer manufacturers, ISPs, and search engines like Google) directly/indirectly benefit from piracy. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to enforce measures that will prevent piracy, even without the many forces directly/indirectly profiting from piracy. The only case where things worked out in a fair/just manner (as far as I can tell) is Louis C.K.'s recent live concert that he released. $5, no DRM, and he made over a million dollars (of which a large chunk went to various charities). But there was no legislation - only his plea that people not pirate, and an acceptance by the consumers to honor that plea. So a world without piracy can exist in a fair/equitable way, but it requires a massive change in how people perceive and, more importantly, respect the industry and the artists.