TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First

People who obtain movies and TV shows from the Internet through unauthorized and often illegal channels would actually prefer not to do if they were given the chance. That’s one of the findings of a new survey into consumer habits which reveals that although lower cost is often cited as a tool for reducing piracy, three other issues are driving people to break the law – convenience, choice and availability.

Following years of wrangling, last month the Danish government officially announced its new strategy for dealing with unauthorized file-sharing.

But against the wishes of rightsholders and in stark contrast with aggressive “3 strikes” style schemes being introduced elsewhere, Denmark said there would be no mechanisms to bully citizens away from file-sharing and into buying media.

Instead, the government announced its “Pirate Package”, an initiative that moves the emphasis away from punishing end users and towards the development and creation of better legal offerings in order to attract them.

Today we can report on the findings of a new study which appear to show that the government made the right decision in opting to educate and develop rather than punish.

YouGov found that just under one in seven Danes obtained unauthorized copies of movies and TV shows online last year. Men and young consumers were the most prolific consumers of illicit content with around 30% of 15-29 year-olds engaging in the activity compared to just 4% of 50-74 year-olds.

But instead of revealing a nation of hardcore and unmovable pirates, the YouGov survey of 2,000 citizens found that of those currently obtaining movies and TV shows from unauthorized online sources, the majority would prefer to do so via legal means.

“Our study shows that Danish pirates would actually prefer to stay within the law,” says Ida Alexandra Mykland, Senior Consultant at YouGov. “But the group indicates that the need for convenience and a high degree of accessibility is simply so great that they choose to access illegal material instead.”

Even among the 28% who said they were happy to continue obtaining movies and TV shows from unauthorized sources, pricing issues were trumped by three core service-related issues – convenience, choice and availability of content.

When justifying consumption of illicit movies, pirates cited convenience as the main reason. When asked about TV shows, swift access to the latest series was key.

Interestingly the issue of price didn’t come in the top three reasons why people pirate. However, when the pirates were asked what could be done to reduce the consumption of illicit content it was a different story.

A significant 72% said that movie and TV show downloading could be reduced by lowering the prices of official content, with 47% stating that offering the latest material could also reduce piracy.

“It is paradoxical that the pirates on one hand do not indicate the price as the main reason why they violate the law, while they also say that lowering the price would be the best way to reduce piracy,” says Mykland. “This may be because consumers generally expect lower prices to download or stream movies online.”

Interestingly, the survey also showed at pirates and paying customers are often one and the same. In the 15-20 year-old group that bought or rented TV shows legally in the last year, 47% also downloaded or streamed illegal content.

Finally, and perhaps in response to the image created by Big Content that their businesses are being ruined by piracy, the study showed that respondents have a distorted view of exactly how widespread piracy is. Three quarters believe that more than 25% of Danes are pirates – the actual number is just 15%.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Timmy

    I’d pirate regardless of anything they do, it’s not a convenience thing for me, it’s saving me money from crappy stuff.

    I pirate movies like Twilight, which in itself explains my point pretty well.

    I pay for movies like Lord of the Rings.

    I pirate songs, even if I support the band.

    If I like the songs, I buy the bands T-Shirt + Limited Edition stuff they offer.

    In summary, make good movies and I’ll not pirate them. Make good music and I’ll reward you with my money through donations, purchasing merch or going to your concerts.

    • Lofa

      You pirated Twilight? Why? That’s a legitimate question, why pirate something that you know will be bad? I pirated LOTR so I wouldn’t have to pay for it, but I don’t see why you’d pirate something you don’t really want to watch.

      I also don’t buy merch for bands, but then again, I’m not a big music fan. It would be kinda weird if I did.

      • Timmy

        > You pirated Twilight? Why?
        At the time of me pirating it (the first movie) I didn’t know what the movie was, I thought it was like Harry Potter. I am filled with regret since the day I watched it. :(

        • Lofa

          I find that odd. I tend to know whether or not I’ll like a movie before I go see it (or download it). I always do research on any movie or game before I spend time seeing or playing it. I just kind of worked on the assumption that everyone else did the same. I guess that makes more sense now.

        • Anyone

          downloading is my research

        • Lofa

          It takes me a good amount of time to find a copy of a movie online that I trust, more time to download it, and more time to decide if it’s worth finishing once I’ve started.. For games, it takes about twice as long. Using downloading as my research is criminally inefficent. If it takes me 5 minutes to find out a movie or game is crap from research, or much, much longer from dowloading it and watching/playing it, then it’s pretty clear which one I’m going to do.

          Like I said, I thought most people did research so they wouldn’t waste their time. I guess I was wrong. Learn something new every day.

        • Anyone

          I don’t have to stare at the progress bar the entire time
          I start the download, usually forget about it and find it finished when I look through my download folder

          downloading is so easy (usually just 1 search and 1 click on TPB) that I rarely waste time actually looking up what the movie is about or what critics think about it, I just download and when I have the time I watch

        • Fools Rush In

          When it comes to movies, the only opinion that matters is my own and the only way to form one is to watch the movie in question. Spend some time on Rotten Tomatoes (video game sites too) for example. You’ll often see a trend where consumers like something that critics don’t and vice versa. I have a friend who actually is a movie critic in fact and we often don’t see eye to eye.

        • Lofa

          Do you think I sit there staring at the progress bar? Do you actually think that? I don’t. But it does take up a lot of bandwidth and slows down my already substandard internet. It would also be very annoying to download something and then find out I dislike it. That annoyance and the waste of my time mean that downloading and trying everything I hear of, or even most stuff, is massively inefficent. To me, piracy is for getting something that I know I want, not for wasting time trying things I have every reason to know I’ll hate.

          @2d4075d9bc1d35a8912ac8d11130cd71:disqus

          I just use three reviewers and a quick youtube video if it’s a game. I haven’t purchased or downloaded anything I’ve disliked in the past three years. Nothing. And, I have found very, very few things that I have avoided downloading which turned out to actually be good (I find out when my friends with somewhat different tastes try them. It’s not hard to find out if you’re going to like something before watching/playing. Your opinions and my opinions of what we like are not so unique that we can’t figure out from others whether we will like it or not. It saves me time, effort, and it’s accurate. What else could I ask for?

        • Anyone

          @efa44bf6304a189bc0213eed1a3b5366:disqus
          well, I have 100MBit/s and torrents rarely use that much (only when I jump in very early to get the seedboxes), so that’s not an issue
          but I can see how it can be if you have a slow connection

          If I don’t like the movie I delete it
          usually I dislike a movie within the first 10-15 minutes, so that is not really an issue

    • No1_2_u

      Exactly!

      What about my right as a consumer to get refunded when I watch, or listen
      too, a piece of shit that is not worth the money I paid for to begin w/? Why
      should I support an industry who perpetually produces crap, ad nauseum sequels,
      & manipulates us into believing their latest “creation” is the
      greatest thing ever on earth when, obviously, they are only producing this shit
      to increase revenue and stock shares?

      “In summary, make good movies and I’ll not pirate them. Make good music and I’ll reward you with my money through donations, purchasing merch or going to your concerts”!

      • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

        Not just about the crap products they produce but the legislation as well.

        I’m boycotting at the moment, lower the prices as much as you want, if a band/production is related to the MAFIAA, no money from me.

        • UizBboycotttt

          boycotting for the same reason.. i was spending at least $50-80/mo on blu-rays… then SOPA/ACTA happened.. haven’t spent a dime on them since.. and won’t
          Not going to give them money if all they are going to use it for is to destroy the internet (something i love much more than their shitty movies)

    • Wormlore

      You’re exactly the kind of pirate that stupidly gives them arguments to push for harsher laws. “It’s bad, so I want it for free.” Be coherent. If it’s bad, you don’t want it. Not for cost, nor for free. Just pass on them.
      Twilight is bad? I agree: no need to go and pay a ticket for theater or to buy a DVD/BR/Whatever… Just don’t download it either. That destroys your whole stance.

      • Timmy

        Try before you buy <– it's a marketing technique.

        Why should try before you buy mean they need to push harsher laws? If I don't try before I buy, I simply wont even bother buying the movie as I couldn't try it in the first place. I merely talk from experience, the days before I pirated I'd only pay to see Harry Potter. I never paid to see a movie I didn't know of after I went to see Epic Movie (which really was the worst movie I've ever seen).

        • Styles

          Try before you buy is a stupid argument in this case. You pretty much know it’s going to be bad. You’d do your research and not buy a POS car or are you saying you’d buy the POS car then return it after 100,000KM (or I guess in this case you’d steal the car). The media industry needs to adopt a model where people can get access to movies that are just about out of theaters when they want them for either a low unit cost or a monthly fee and use something like torrents to keeps distribution costs down. Someone needs to fund the industry and I don’t have an issue with that. I like it when my boss pays me after all.

        • puddipuddi

          This is to styles because this shit system wont let me reply to him.

          “ You’d do your research and not buy a POS car or are you saying you’d buy the POS car then return it after 100,000KM (or I guess in this case you’d steal the car)”

          You hate against “try before you buy”, do you realize that you get to test drive a car before you buy it?  Your analogy is total shit.

    • Gear Mentation

       Sometimes you have to watch crap to keep up with the times.

      • RandomNetUser

         Leave me in the past if I have to watch crap to keep up with the times lol

    • RIAAtarded

      This is a viable argument tbh. The entertainment Industry is the only group at least in my country that once you purchase their product if you’re not happy with it you have no recourse to return it for refund. Once you open it all bets are off and you’re stuck with it. Honestly it is the only product I can think of with that policy. Couple this with the fact that they reboot, reuse and recycle everything I think it is unfair that no consumer can be refunded if it doesn’t meet their expectation. A quick look at IMDB paints a fair picture on quality of content being offered or any review site for that matter but if you are a fan or want it early you don’t even get the benefit of the experiences of other. They call us pirates, not sure about the rest of you but with the poor quality I’m far from a pirate. Serial deleter would be a more accurate description.

    • wooty

       I don’t need to read the article to know this is basically the same thing as every other article.

      • puddipuddi

        fuck off i look forward to these articles every day, suck a dick you riaa scumbat :P

  • Anonymous

    ‘ the group indicates that the need for convenience and a high degree of
    accessibility is simply so great that they choose to access illegal
    material instead’

    i would think this needs to be turned round to say that the lack of accessibility, low speed, inconvenience, format restrictions, protection (drm), low quality and high price are what send people to illegal downloads rather than legitimate options. trouble is, the entertainment industries are fully aware of their failings and fully aware of what they need to do. however, to actually do what customers ask, even though much more money will be made by the industries, is being looked at by those industries as giving in, as losing control. therefore, they continue down the ‘you cant tell us what to do with our stuff. we will tell you what you can have and when, how, etc you can have it.’ what governments are doing is helping these stupid 1920′s industry execs stay there, in the 1920′s, instead of saying ‘if you want to join the C21st, you gotta do what is needed, not keep lying to us so you can get legislation enforced against your customers so you stay retarded’. unfortunately, they wont listen. they therefore deserve to lose all customers and have their grip on certain businesses broken. if they cant compete fairly, die!!

    • djnforce9

      Hopefully once all the old geezers (that still cling to these dated models) FINALLY retire, the younger successors (who probably pirated stuff themselves) will take over and make things right. Then again, the successors may have already been coerced into the old fashioned mentality as well.

      An example of “old fashioned mentality”. Why is Disney STILL withholding certain movies from sale each year? If I can’t find it in stores, how else am I expected to get it outside of pirate sites. I remember wanting to give Toy Story to my nephew and went to buy it only to find it out of season so to speak. They can’t possibly expect me to “wait until next year to buy it” in this day and age.

      I strongly agree that a full blown repository of every piece of media the entertainment industry owns readily accessible DRM free in every single country from day one would help a lot but all these ridiculous copyright laws to preserve ancient models as well as the overall attitude of the industry in general prevents it from becoming reality. Not to mention insane greed which leads to imposing fines on people for singing songs out in public because it constitutes a public performance.

      • puddipuddi

        I remember when I was a kid, and Cinderella was on an x year hiatus.  So my dad brought me home a vhs tape from his buddy, with Cinderella scribbled on the vhs with a sharpy.  Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree :)   

  • Anon

    The automotive manufacturers refuse to create the car with the options, colors and details I want at the low price I’m willing to pay. Until they do I won’t steal them, I’ll just take cars and use them as I need them. It’s their own fault. It’s not very convenient dealing with their “options packages” and I’m the customer.

    I’m always right.

    • Anyone

      stop stealing cars and download them instead

      • ScrewEwe2

        “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

        Oh wait, wrong story, never mind.

    • Daddy

      There is a difference between stealing and copying. Your argument is stupid and you should feel stupid.

      • Guest

         @Daddy I think you’ll find Anon said “I won’t steal them”.

        Feel free to feel stupid yourself.

        • Anyone

          I wonder how he manages to “take” cars without “stealing” them

        • Daddy

           So, “take cars” and use them as he needs to, how is that anything different than stealing?
          I see a car on the road, I take it.
          I see a car on the road, I steal it.
          I see a car on the road, I clone it.

          Its the same thing as:
          I see a tshirt I like, I take it.
          I see a tshirt I like, I steal it.
          I see a tshirt I like, I make/copy it.
          Me making my own tshirt with the same design as the one on sale by the company hurts the revenue stream of the company because I COULD have bought it from them, but I made it myself.

          This logic doesn’t apply to pirating digital content such as movies, music, tv, but does apply to Anon’s comment.

          P.S.  How many of you ARE here? Or are you all the same person with a split-personality disorder? What you’re doing right now is the equivalent of an atheist going into a church, climbing on the podium, and proclaiming he’s an atheist. Obviously he’s going to be hated on and ridiculed.

        • Anon

          @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus

          Obviously, he just borrows them indefinitely without asking. It’s not theft, so it’s cool.

        • Guest

          @Daddy & Anyone.
          @2da29fe8909e8000dbf08cd3568d3dc5:disqus
          here’s a thing called “permission” which people can afford others.

          In the case of cars an owner can grant another individual permission to take their car as long as the appropriate licences and insurances are in place. Is that simple enough for you nor are you struggling with the concept of “permission” and “licences”?

        • Wallace

          “Obviously, he just borrows them indefinitely without asking. It’s not theft, so it’s cool.”

          Funny, but what does this have to do with file-sharing? File-sharers always ask. That’s a precondition of copying someone else’s file – you computer asks theirs.

          In fact that’s the ONLY piece that has occasionally gotten people into trouble in US civil court – they gave the general public the opportunity to copy their files. If digital copies of music and movies were truly being stolen there would be no civil liability toward the creator at all – there would only be criminal hacking cases brought by file owners.

          And no, other industries don’t have a problem with sharing. Big auto doesn’t care if a car owner shares it with someone else. T-shirt makers don’t care if you make a “counterfeit” for your personal use.

        • Dffvg

           Why do I want to believe that you are the same person as Anon??

        • puddipuddi

          @ac772b48d6728242138b1df18c9716e5:disqus  daddy, did you ever here of after market parts?  Are you serious?  I can make any tshirt I want, this is merika.
          you are the atheist here, everyone hates you, you are the minority.  BTW I am an atheist, and I find that against my religion.

      • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

        Yes but there are also many similarities. Illegal downloading is loss of income, just as stealing is.

        • Anyone

          it is not
          it is sad that we have to repeat this so often and you never seem to learn

        • Fredrika

          > “Yes but there are also many similarities.”

          As you are fully aware of there exists absolutely no similarities between an infringement into a legislative monopoly, which is something that is performed with one’s own property, and the permanent appropriation of someone else’s property. They are completely different acts which share no similarities whatsoever, only differences. They fall under completely different legislations which exists for completely different reasons.

          > “Illegal downloading is loss of income..

          As you are fully aware of there exist no such fixed correlation. The possibility for income still exists with 100%. Secondly, you can not loose what you never had in the first place. Simple logic and laws of physics which you for some reason don’t seem to grasp.

          > “..just as stealing is.”

          Stealing is not loss of income, stealing is permanent loss of previously existing property. Do you not understand the concept of property or theft?

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus 

          “it is sad that we have to repeat this so often and you never seem to learn”

          It’s sad that the pirates never learn. But they don’t want to, obviously.

        • Fredrika

          > “It’s sad that the pirates never learn. But they don’t want to, obviously.”

          Learn what? Yet another empty meaningless one-liner. Is that all you can produce?

          Regarding learning, the one here who seems to have a problem understanding facts(and therefore needs to learn things), regarding the concepts of property, copyright, legislative monopolies, infringements, and other completely unrelated acts, is you.

        • Anyone

          @nejtillpirater:disqus
          if you show me an actual study not funded by the MAFIAA that says non-profit piracy actually hurts sales I will be convinced

          until then you are simply talking out of your ass and spreading lies

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus 

          “if you show me an actual study not funded by the MAFIAA that says non-profit piracy actually hurts sales I will be convinced”

          1. There is no such thing as the MAFIAA. It’s individual artists, composers, etc.

          2. Can you show any actual studies saying that shoplifting hurts the sales? If not, shoplifting is justified in the same way as piracy?

        • Fredrika

          > There is no such thing as the MAFIAA. It’s individual artists, composers, etc.”

          There is indeed something which is commonly called the Mafiaa, it’s a collective term describing Riaa, Mpaa and their local counterparts, and they in turn do not represent the artists, composers etc, they represent a couple of large North American monopoly holders. Where you not aware of this?

          > “Can you show any actual studies saying that shoplifting hurts the sales?”

          Shoplifting hurts ownership of scarce property, because the property disappears. Do you not understand the concept of property, scarcity or the logical outcome of something scarce disappearing?

          > “If not, shoplifting is justified in the same way as piracy?”

          No it is not, because shoplifting affects someone else’s property, in such a manner that it disappears. Piracy on the other hand refers to the property of pirates, so no justification is needed, because they already own their own property. The only thing which should be justified is the prohibition in law, and in this case the legislative monopolies and it’s following intrusion into peoples property. Since that justification obviolusy has failed, people manufacture as much copies as they wish with their own property.

          Have you already forgotten how society works, in which direction legislation affects and where justification is required? Would you like me to provide you with a link to a conversation we had over a year ago where you claimed to grasp these facts? Have you since forgotten them?

        • Anyone

          @nejtillpirater:disqus

          of course there is the MAFIAA
          you might call them MPAA, RIAA and their local acronyms, but MAFIAA is just so much more accurate

          not sure if there needs to be a study about shoplifting hurting sales
          “product gone = product can’t be sold”
          “product copied = product can still be sold”
          I don’t think that needs much scientific study

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          @f05af58b8c10e93b3595bb996aad4e5d:disqus 

          “not sure if there needs to be a study about shoplifting hurting sales
          “product gone = product can’t be sold”
          “product copied = product can still be sold”
          I don’t think that needs much scientific study”

          Actually, using pirate arguments, it’s NOT obvious that shoplifting is hurting the sales. You might say that:
          - If I’m not allowed to shoplift, I’ll refuse to go to that store again ever
          - I got to that store almost every day, I’m sure I buy a lot more than those who go there more seldom and never shoplift.Etc.

        • Anyone

          @nejtillpirater:disqus
          you really should learn about the differences between physical property and imaginary property

        • drklassen

          No, it isn’t.  Unless you make the blindingly silly argument that everyone who downloaded would have bought.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          Everyone who downloaded would of course not have bought.

          But it’s also blindingly silly to say that none who have downloaded would have bought. The answer is in between, neither none nor everyone.

          Accordion to the Swedish Mediavision study, based on interviews of downloaders, they would have bought in 25% of the cases if it hadn’t been possible to illegally download. The average number may be lower but it’s blindingly silly to claim that its 0%.

        • Fredrika

          > “But it’s also blindingly silly to say that none who have downloaded would have bought. The answer is in between, neither none nor everyone.”

          As has been explained to you several times, the total number of sales can also have gone up from the fact that it was pirated. The number does not have to be negative.

          > “Accordion to the Swedish Mediavision study..”

          As has been explained to you several times before, you would have to be a complete idiot believing a study done by a profit seeking company, a study ordered by a party that has an interest in a certain outcome, a study which was so flawed and weak so that it couldn’t stand up to any scrutiny, which was the reason for why it was never openly published, holds any value whatsoever.

          And you reference it because..?

        • Dirty_Bear

          “Shoplifting hurts ownership of scarce property, because the property disappears. Do you not understand the concept of property, scarcity or the logical outcome of something scarce disappearing?”

          Hmm, are you running what you write through Google translate? Scarce isn’t the right word. Do you mean tangible? 

          Also, what happens when you walk away from a barber or cinema without paying? What tangible item disappears then? 

        • Fredrika

          > “Hmm, are you running what you write through Google translate? Scarce isn’t the right word. Do you mean tangible?”

          No, i wrote the word scarce to highlight what makes property property, which is scarcity, regardless of if it’s tangible or intangible objects. But i see how that could be misinterpreted, especially by someone who has a well documented problem with understanding property, as you have proven over the last couple of months to have.

          > “Also, what happens when you walk away from a barber or cinema without paying?”

          Not theft, that’s for sure. In cinemas you usually pay before you enter the theatre. Walking out without paying for a performed service is not called theft. Did you not know this?

          > “What tangible item disappears then?”

          None, which is why it isn’t theft. But i assume the term you seek to try to get a point through is theft of service, but theft and theft-of-service is not the same thing. Theft is theft, and it indicates that something scarce has gone missing, as in property. Other crimes are other crimes. Theft of service is a completely different crime, although it’s usually tried as larceny. But calling theft of service for theft of service is indeed an illogical term to describe the crime, since nothing goes missing.

          However, if we follow your desperate attempt at getting a point through to the end, that a copyright infringement has taken place still doesn’t mean that anything similar to theft of service as taken place, because no one has performed a service for you in the first place which they wanted to get paid for. The service of distributing the information that described someones physical property was in fact performed voluntary and for free, by the owner of the property.

          That such distribution has taken place, and that it constituted an infringement, will never ever mean that theft has taken place. Try to accept this indisputable fact once and for all.

          BTW, as i asked you earlier today, Tom/Dirty Bear/Dirty/Bob, why do you post comments under so many different signatures and user profiles? Is it an attempt at making yourself out to be several different persons, while you are in fact only one? Disqus offers you the possibility to merge different profiles, so maybe you can merge these four?

          http://disqus.com/guest/dfc46bcdf9cc58289afb68cf4d25006c/
          http://disqus.com/Dirty_Bear/
          http://disqus.com/guest/226128832e0f0566f07c029fc434e8bb/
          http://disqus.com/guest/130e4345058aa95bfb2fc0d9d9b3796b/

        • Dirty_Bear

          “No, i wrote the word scarce to highlight what makes property property, which is scarcity, regardless of if it’s tangible or intangible objects. But i see how that could be misinterpreted, especially by someone who has a well documented problem with understanding property, as you have proven over the last couple of months to have.”

          If that is the point you are trying to make by using that word then I believe that you have failed. These definitions should help you along your way to enlightenment.

          Property:
          a. Something owned; a possession.
          b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
          c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.d. Possessions considered as a group.

          “Not theft, that’s for sure. In cinemas you usually pay before you enter the theatre. Walking out without paying for a performed service is not called theft. Did you not know this?”

          Well actually it’s called Theft of Service: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/theft-of-services/ Sorry :(

          The remainder of what you wrote sounds a bit like crying. I just hate seeing a girl/big hairy dude cry.

        • Fredrika

          > “If that is the point you are trying to make by using that word then I believe that you have failed. These definitions should help you along your way to enlightenment.

          > Property:”

          The quoted text describes what is property, it did not describe what criteria that makes property property in the first place. That would be scarcity. Although it did open with something owned, which for those intelligent enough to understand the concept of ownership indicates that it refers to something scarce. The failure to understand text was once again performed by you.

          > “Well actually it’s called Theft of service..”

          Yes, i did mention that in the next part of my comment? Please read that and respond to it if you believe you have found something which isn’t correct, and i will again try to help you read it properly, so that maybe, just maybe, this time, you will finally understand it, or the indisputable fact that an infringement is never ever theft, which is the only relevant point for the debate about copyright and filesharing.

          > “..There isn’t a point for a study in both cases as it is common sense that they both do hurt sales.”

          > “In order to prove that piracy hurt sales all you need is one pirate who
          would admit that they have bought an item but chose to pirate it
          instead. To prove that it doesn’t you will need 100% of pirates to prove
          that they wouldn’t have bought any of the stuff they pirated”

          Is that an admittance to lacking common sense then? Because shoplifting hurts property, not sales. Unless the last item in stock was shoplifted, but in that case it isn’t the theft in itself that possibly caused harm to sales, it’s the low stock.

          However, that piracy hurts sales is no way self-evident, and that any harm is caused to sales(as in PLURAL) by it can not be determined by common sense.

          Piracy might prevent one sale on an individual level, but at the same time piracy might lead to extra sales on a general level, so the outcome to overall sales, which obviously is the only relevant number to someone who tries to make sales, could very well be positive(which all statistics regarding the content industry’s current record revenues, and several independent studies available, indicate would be the case).

          This is something which any one with common sense understands. You
          didn’t. Again you have proven to completely lack common sense.

        • Dirty_Bear


          The quoted text describes what is property, it did not describe what criteria that makesproperty property in the first place. That would be scarcity. Although it did open withsomething owned, which for those intelligent enough to understand the concept of ownership indicates that it refers to something scarce. The failure to understand text was once again performed by you. ”
          You are tying yourself up into knots Fred. ”Because shoplifting hurts property, not sales. Unless the last item in stock was shoplifted, but in that case it isn’t the theft in itself that possibly caused harm to sales, it’s the low stock.”Stock can always be replaced but that “sale” is gone. The profit that would have been made from the purchase of that item is gone. The item its self is of no importance its the potential money gained from the sale of that item that is important. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Oh yeah, the sale of intellectual property works like that also. Hmmm….”Piracy might prevent one sale on an individual level, but at the same time piracy might lead to extra sales on a general level, so the outcome to overall sales, which obviously is the only relevant number to someone who tries to make sales, could very well bepositive(which all statistics regarding the content industry’s current record revenues, and several independent studies available, indicate would be the case).”It still doesn’t matter. Whether the sale is offset or not… piracy still, using common sense, hurts sales. One is simple to quantify (based on the one individual) the other (piracy leading to sales) is an unknown. Who knows, shoplifting could possibly lead to sales. For example, a shoplifter could steal a product and end up loving its taste. He may then decide to buy a shit load the next time he is at the store. Does this help with determining the damage in potential sale. Well, no. It’s irrelevant. 

        • Fredrika

          > “You are tying yourself up into knots Fred.”

          Another empty meaningless accusation. If you have a problem with what i wrote, please respond to it instead, point out what you can’t agree with, and we will take it from there.

          > “Stock can always be replaced but that “sale” is gone.”

          No, the possibility of the sale still exists. Secondly, a sale is not an object that can go missing. Failure to sell, for whatever reason, does not mean something is gone, something that you previously had in your possession.

          > “The profit that would have been made from the purchase of that item is gone.”

          Something that didn’t exist in the first place can not go missing.

          > “The item its self is of no importance its the potential money gained from the sale of that item that is important.”

          Not receiving potential money that you possibly could have gotten does not equal that something has gone missing. What the seller had in his possession before he will still have afterwards.

          > ” Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Oh yeah, the sale of intellectual property works like that also.”

          First of all the sale is not of intellectual property. This has been explained to you before. Intellectual property refers to the copyright monopoly, which is not something that a seller sells when he sells copies or services. Please stop confusing intellectual property with the intellectual work, and please stop confusing the intellectual work with the copy or the services which are sold.

          Secondly, the first part of your paragraph wasn’t reality based, so nothing else can work like that also. Failure to sell at one point in time does not equal the loss of anything. What the seller had in his possession before, he will still has afterwards. That which is he did not have he never had, therefore it is not gone. The infinite possibility of sales remains.

          > “It still doesn’t matter. Whether the sale is offset or not… piracy still, using common sense, hurts sales.”

          No, if the overall level of sales go up because if piracy, no harm has been caused to sales. This is simple logic and mathematics. Please stop confusing sale with sales. That one single sale possibly goes out the window does not equal that sales has been hurt.

          > “One is simple to quantify (based on the one individual) the other (piracy leading to sales) is an unknown.”

          That it is unknown does not equal that the number is smaller than one. Simple logical mathematical fact.

          > “Who knows, shoplifting could possibly lead to sales.”

          Which has no relevance to the fact that common sense doesn’t tell you that piracy hurts sales. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the indisputable fact that an infringement isn’t theft. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the fact that no evidence has ever been put forward that proves that society has a need for non-profit use of intellectual works to be regulated in the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into peoples property rights, to achieve the goal with copyright, which makes the prohibition against filesharing illegitimate according to the rules of law regarding proven need, function and proportionality, just as with the legislation in dictatorships. If your argument is that people should follow illegitimate legislation out of principle, you have no argument whatsoever, other than those used in dictatorships.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          Frederika:

          from wikipedia:
          ” Most scholars of copyright agree that it can be called a kind of property, because it involves the exclusion of others from something. ”

          These scholars are far far far smarter than you, they have debated this endlessly,  and if the majority of these people, whose speciality is copyright, agree that it can be a kind of property, thus can be subjected to theft.

          No doubt copyright laws should be reformed and the lengths limited, but nobody is saying filesharing should be outright legalised, thats just immoral and stupid.

          basically, even if copyright law is reformed to such an extreme level, that anything older than 6 months is in the public domain, people will still pirate the crap out of ‘avengers’, why? cause people are scum.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          “Frederika wrote:
          Piracy might prevent one sale on an individual level, but at the same time piracy might lead to extra sales on a general level, so the outcome to overall sales, which obviously is the only relevant number to someone who tries to make sales, could very well be positive(which
          all statistics regarding the content industry’s current record
          revenues, and several independent studies available, indicate would be
          the case).”

          But dont you understand, if piracy was legal, it wouldnt prevent one sale, it would prevent ALL sales! Overall sales = 0 (or near zero, i am sure some people will donate to the charity this company has now become.)
          The only way piracy can benefit anyone is if its illegal, not legal.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          “But dont you understand, if piracy was legal, it wouldnt prevent one sale, it would prevent ALL sales! ”

          And this leads to an argument that is not heard often enough:

          Not fighting piracy on the internet results in injustice, why should honest people pay for their copies of music or movies when dishonest people get away with “stealing” a copy?

          A parallel discussion is regarding legalization of doping for athletes. If this is done, it would lead to that ALL athletes must use all legal substances, to not get behind the other athletes.

          If piracy on the internet is not counteracted, or if downloading for private use was legal, why should anyone ever pay?

        • Fredrika

          > “Not fighting piracy on the internet results in injustice, why should honest people pay for their copies of music or movies when dishonest people get away with “stealing” a copy?”

          They should pay if they want to buy a copy. If someone else rather want to manufacture a copy himself, that does not cause any injustice, because no one is forcing anyone to buy one in the first place.

          Secondly, following the rules of the free market does not make you dishonest., it makes you economical and smart capitalist.

          Finally, as you are fully aware of, the act of manufacturing something with your own property is never stealing according to any logical use of of the word.

          > “If piracy on the internet is not counteracted, or if downloading for private use was legal, why should anyone ever pay?”

          Because they feel that the products and services that are offered are worth their money, obviously?

        • Trespass

            “Illegal downloading is loss of income”  ***

          ***Citation needed.  I assume you have data to support this statement?  Revenues from the industry suggest otherwise…

        • Anyone

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus
          there are a few people saying that non-profit filesharing should be fully legalized

          and I don’t see how that would “prevent” all sales
          after all there still is a bottled water industry despite tapwater being practically free
          books are still being bought despite libraries

          and do you really think all the people buying stuff on itunes, netflix or steam or just too stupid to pirate?
          most know fully well that the content they are buying would be available for free, but they want to support the creator or just like the ease-of-mind of guaranteed virus free files

          the MAFIAA bitches and moans because they lose their status as middlemen that can easily screw over the artists and customers alike, not because of “lost sales”

        • puddipuddi

          I just want to echo Fredrika’s comment and make a little more clear for the under educated:

          You have zero concept of law or common sense.

          Thank you Fredrika for the appropriate response for us educated and reasonable fokes. 

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          You keep repeating that long-disproven lie as much as you like. As usual reality will not conform to your beliefs.

          Indeed, if there is ANY “loss of income” then that loss is so small that scientific peer-reviewed studies have been unable to find it despite looking very hard. By now that argument of yours makes you resemble a flat-earther more than anything else.

        • Guest

            
          @Nejtilltroller:twitter 

          “Illegal downloading is loss of income”

          Except it isn’t. How do you expect people to listen to you when you keep bullshitting them? Seriously, how? “There is no such thing as the MAFIAA.”The MAFIAA is a conglomerate of the RIAA, MPAA, and all of the other copyright gangs that try to censor the internet, throw people in jail, and shit all over civil liberties all so that they can continue to act as gatekeepers standing in the way between customers and artists, gouging the former and robbing the latter. Even though their gatekeeping position  became obsolete at the turn of the century. They’re called the MAFIAA because they act like it. “If not, shoplifting is justified in the same way as piracy”?Shoplifting deprives the store owner of a salable product, filesharing doesn’t deprive anybody of a salable product. Shoplifting involves theft, filesharing does not. The two have nothing to do with eachother, but you keep comparing them as if they were the same because you’re a shit-filled copyright industry minion.  What’s next, are you going to ask us if we’d steal a car?  

        • Guest

          There are no words to even describe how shitty Disqus is. 

          @Nejtilltroller:disqus 

          “Illegal downloading is a loss of income”

          Except it isn’t. How do you expect people to listen to you when you keep bullshitting them? Seriously, how? 

          “There is no such thing as the MAFIAA.

          The MAFIAA is a conglomerate of the RIAA, MPAA, and all of the other copyright gangs that try to censor the internet, throw people in jail, and and shit all over civil liberties all so that they can continue to act as gatekeepers standing in the way between customers and artists, gouging the former and robbing the latter. Even though their gatekeeping position became obsolete at the turn of the century. 

          They’re called the MAFIAA because they act like it. 

          “If not, shoplifting is justified in the same way as piracy?” 

          Shoplifting deprives the store owner of a salable prduct, filesharing doesn’t deprive anybody of a salable product. Shoplifting involves theft, filesharing does not. The two have nothing to do with eachother . But you keep comparing them as if they were the same  because you’re a shit-filled copyright industry minion. What’s next, are you going to ask us if we’d steal a car? 

        • Guest

          @Dirty_Bear:disqus 

          and Nejtillpirater point,”

          Nejtillpirater’s point is that he’s a trolling cunt who refuses to acknowledge the difference between stealing a physical object and replicating a digital file, which is why he keeps making false comparisons between filesharing and shoplifting. 

          “There isn’t a point for a study in both cases as it is common sense that they both do hurt sales.” 

          There are not a wealth of studies which conclude that shoplifting doesn’t hurt sales. There are, however, a wealth of studies which conclude that filesharing increases sales. See the slight difference there? To say that filesharing hurts sales is an ignorant blanket statement contradicted by an increasing mountain of actual research. 

          “You see, you are trying, sneakily, to compare two legal definitions and say that they aren’t the same.”

          Do you know why they have two different legal definitions? Because they are not the same thing. Are you having a contest with Nejtillpirater to see who can troll the hardest, or are you trying to kill us all with stupidity? 

        • Garry

          As TorrentFreak seems to be doing that we aren’t gonna show your post… Looks like I need to post as someone else again. Another one for your list Fred.

          Guest 

          “Nejtillpirater’s point is that he’s a trolling cunt who refuses to acknowledge the difference between stealing a physical object and replicating a digital file, which is why he keeps making false comparisons between filesharing and shoplifting.”

          He wasn’t comparing the two he was using it as an example to prove that the lame statement was indeed lame. 

          #Anyone
          “if you show me an actual study not funded by the MAFIAA that says non-profit piracy actually hurts sales I will be convinced”

          #Nejtillpirater 
          “Can you show any actual studies saying that shoplifting hurts the sales? If not, shoplifting is justified in the same way as piracy?” 

          He is saying that if you need a study to show you that piracy hurts sales then why dont you need a study to show that shoplifting hurts sales. That was all he said. All this crying saying that he said that piracy is like shoplifting is simply a strawman. He may have said it another time but he didn’t here.

          “There are not a wealth of studies which conclude that shoplifting doesn’t hurt sales. There are, however, a wealth of studies which conclude that filesharing increases sales. See the slight difference there? To say that filesharing hurts sales is an ignorant blanket statement contradicted by an increasing mountain of actual research.”

          And yet you have failed to produce a simple link. Regardless, anyone can produce a study. Unless it has been peer reviewed, I won’t be wasting my time raeding it.  

          “Do you know why they have two different legal definitions? Because they are not the same thing.”

          Legal definitions are far more strict than general definitions. The need to be in order to guage their severity, intent and final sentencing. Standard or colloquial definition, those used in everyday language, are more broad.    

          Are you having a contest with Nejtillpirater to see who can troll the hardest, or are you trying to kill us all with stupidity?

          As you have not yet commited suicide. I don’t think that it is possible.

        • http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/ Nejtillpirater

          “Regardless, anyone can produce a study. Unless it has been peer reviewed, I won’t be wasting my time raeding it. ”

          Right. E.g. we have the Cybernormer group at the Lund University in Sweden. One of the members of that group is Marcin de Kaminski, one of the founders of the Pirate Bay. They have also done research in collaboration with the Pirate Bay. I’m sure that they produce a lot of studies that are “independent” according to the pirates.

          And I agree with you regarding:
          “There are, however, a wealth of studies which conclude that filesharing increases sales.”

          There are not.

        • Dirty_Bear

          “Another empty meaningless accusation. If you have a problem with what i wrote, please respond to it instead, point out what you can’t agree with, and we will take it from there.”

          Oh lord. Everything you write is a problem Fred.   

          > “Stock can always be replaced but that “sale” is gone.”

          “No, the possibility of the sale still exists. Secondly, a sale is not an object that can go missing. Failure to sell, for whatever reason, does not mean something is gone, something that you previously had in your possession.”

          What are you going on about? If you have one item to sale and that item goes missing. Where is your sale?

          > “The profit that would have been made from the purchase of that item is gone.”

          “Something that didn’t exist in the first place can not go missing.”

          What? The sale existed before the item was stolen. Are you having a fit Fred? Shall I call the paramedics?

          > “The item its self is of no importance its the potential money gained from the sale of that item that is important.”

          “Not receiving potential money that you possibly could have gotten does not equal that something has gone missing. What the seller had in his possession before he will still have afterwards.”

          Oh my… you are having a fit! Something did go missing Fred. The shoplifter ran off with it. Do keep up.

          > ” Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Oh yeah, the sale of intellectual property works like that also.”

          “First of all the sale is not of intellectual property. This has been explained to you before. Intellectual property refers to the copyright monopoly, which is not something that a seller sells when he sells copies or services.”

          Yor random bullshit generator is working extra hard today. I didn’t say that the sale was of intellectual property did I? 

          “Please stop confusing intellectual property with the intellectual work, and please stop confusing the intellectual work with the copy or the services which are sold.”

          Ok please tell me the difference between Intellectual property intellectual work? Not that I have said anything about intellectual work mind you. In fact what is intellectual work?

          “Secondly, the first part of your paragraph wasn’t reality based, so nothing else can work like that also. Failure to sell at one point in time does not equal the loss of anything. What the seller had in his possession before, he will still has afterwards. That which is he did not have he never had, therefore it is not gone. The infinite possibility of sales remains.”

          If you have one item to sale and that item goes missing. Where is your sale? Just because I sale another unrelated item at another point in time does mean that I didn’t lose my sale. 

          > “It still doesn’t matter. Whether the sale is offset or not… piracy still, using common sense, hurts sales.”

          “No, if the overall level of sales go up because if piracy, no harm has been caused to sales. This is simple logic and mathematics. Please stop confusing sale with sales. That one single sale possibly goes out the window does not equal that sales has been hurt.”

          It is impossible to determine how piracy can increase sale. It is, however, possible to determine that piracy hurts sales using the common sense argument I posed previously. This is a logical way of arriving at a conclusion on whether piracy hurts sales or not. 

          > “One is simple to quantify (based on the one individual) the other (piracy leading to sales) is an unknown.”

          “That it is unknown does not equal that the number is smaller than one. Simple logical mathematical fact.”

          It’s completely unknown therefor you can’t used it in either logic or mathematics. Also, another reason as to why it is irrelevent is because it is impossible to determines how it offsets the actual lost sales.

          What is known is that at least one pirate would have bought an item if they were unable to pirate it. We can all verify that ourselves as we have at least done this once. Therefor, piracy hurts sales even if it is just one.  

          > “Who knows, shoplifting could possibly lead to sales.”

          “Which has no relevance to the fact that common sense doesn’t tell you that piracy hurts sales. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the indisputable fact that an infringement isn’t theft. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the fact that no evidence has ever been put forward that proves that society has a need for non-profit use of intellectual works to be regulated in the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into peoples property rights, to achieve the goal with copyright, which makes the prohibition against filesharing illegitimate according to the rules of law regarding proven need, function and proportionality, just as with the legislation in dictatorships. If your argument is that people should follow illegitimate legislation out of principle, you have no argument whatsoever, other than those used in dictatorships.”

          Brain fart…

        • Dirty_Bear

          “Another empty meaningless accusation. If you have a problem with what i wrote, please respond to it instead, point out what you can’t agree with, and we will take it from there.”Oh lord. Everything you write is a problem Fred.   > “Stock can always be replaced but that “sale” is gone.” “No, the possibility of the sale still exists. Secondly, a sale is not an object that can go missing. Failure to sell, for whatever reason, does not mean something is gone, something that you previously had in your possession.”What are you going on about? If you have one item to sale and that item goes missing. Where is your sale?> “The profit that would have been made from the purchase of that item is gone.”"Something that didn’t exist in the first place can not go missing.”What? The sale existed before the item was stolen. Are you having a fit Fred? Shall I call the paramedics?> “The item its self is of no importance its the potential money gained from the sale of that item that is important.”"Not receiving potential money that you possibly could have gotten does not equal that something has gone missing. What the seller had in his possession before he will still have afterwards.”Oh my… you are having a fit! Something did go missing Fred. The shoplifter ran off with it. Do keep up.> ” Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Oh yeah, the sale of intellectual property works like that also.”"First of all the sale is not of intellectual property. This has been explained to you before. Intellectual property refers to the copyright monopoly, which is not something that a seller sells when he sells copies or services.”Yor random bullshit generator is working extra hard today. I didn’t say that the sale was of intellectual property did I? ”Please stop confusing intellectual property with the intellectual work, and please stop confusing the intellectual work with the copy or the services which are sold.”Ok please tell me the difference between Intellectual property intellectual work? Not that I have said anything about intellectual work mind you. In fact what is intellectual work?”Secondly, the first part of your paragraph wasn’t reality based, so nothing else can work like that also. Failure to sell at one point in time does not equal the loss of anything. What the seller had in his possession before, he will still has afterwards. That which is he did not have he never had, therefore it is not gone. The infinite possibility of sales remains.”If you have one item to sale and that item goes missing. Where is your sale? Just because I sale another unrelated item at another point in time does mean that I didn’t lose my sale. > “It still doesn’t matter. Whether the sale is offset or not… piracy still, using common sense, hurts sales.”"No, if the overall level of sales go up because if piracy, no harm has been caused to sales. This is simple logic and mathematics. Please stop confusing sale with sales. That one single sale possibly goes out the window does not equal that sales has been hurt.”It is impossible to determine how piracy can increase sale. It is, however, possible to determine that piracy hurts sales using the common sense argument I posed previously. This is a logical way of arriving at a conclusion on whether piracy hurts sales or not. > “One is simple to quantify (based on the one individual) the other (piracy leading to sales) is an unknown.”"That it is unknown does not equal that the number is smaller than one. Simple logical mathematical fact.”It’s completely unknown and indeterminable. Therefore you can’t used it in either logic or mathematics. Also, another reason as to why it is irrelevant is because it is impossible to determine how it offsets the actual lost sales.What is known is that at least one pirate would have bought an item if they were unable to pirate it. We can all verify that ourselves as we have at least done this once. Therefore, piracy hurts sales even if it is just one.  > “Who knows, shoplifting could possibly lead to sales.”"Which has no relevance to the fact that common sense doesn’t tell you that piracy hurts sales. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the indisputable fact that an infringement isn’t theft. Nor does it have any relevance whatsoever to the fact that no evidence has ever been put forward that proves that society has a need for non-profit use of intellectual works to be regulated in the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into peoples property rights, to achieve the goal with copyright, which makes the prohibition against filesharing illegitimate according to the rules of law regarding proven need, function and proportionality, just as with the legislation in dictatorships. 

    • Fredrika

      > “The automotive manufacturers refuse to create the car with the options, colors and details I want at the low price I’m willing to pay. Until they do I won’t steal them, I’ll just take cars and use them as I need them.”

      Since you seem to have an unusual hard time understanding reality, the concept of property and the laws of psychics, please let me correct that for you:

      “The automotive manufacturers refuse to create the car with the options, colours and details I want at the low price I’m willing to pay. Until they do I won’t steal them, I’ll just manufacture a car myself with my own property, that i own.

      Now it becomes logical and fits reality, the laws of physics and the concept of property.

      > “It’s their own fault. It’s not very convenient dealing with their “options packages” and I’m the customer.”

      Let me correct that as well:

      It’s not very convenient dealing with their “options packages”, so i chose not to become their customer, and because of that they deserve no money whatsoever from me, and they deserve to go under according to the free market rules.

      But if i remember correctly, you’re the one who have a hard time understanding or accepting how the concepts of property and the free market works, right? Or were you advocating communism and against property rights? You never answered that question for some reason.. Well i guess at troll has to follow the rules, even if he’s a communist.

      • BobButtons

        *colors

        • Fredrika

          > “*colors”

          Actually, both works, and since EU is a stronger economy than the US, i think it’s rather reasonable that we don’t use the spelling used in a weak economy that is owned by China? =)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-our.2C_-or

        • Daddy

          colours/colors – the text equivalent of po-tah-toes, and po-tay-toes…

        • just saying

           it’s a point of honour

        • Danny

          Unfortunately I can’t click Fredrikas like button more than once but +100

          I hate people pissing on our language just because they think they are bigger.

    • Wallace

      People share cars all the time. There are even businesses like Zipcar that make money off it.

      The difference is that big auto doesn’t hire trolls to post Anon comments on Zipcar forums. Even though it costs big auto potential profit. Even though Zipcar uses someone else’s trademarked and patented material to compete with the creator.

    • Jonecones

      If I could get away with it, I’d steal them too (cars).   I pirate because it’s free, easy and convenient.  Sorry if it’s hurting the likes of Tom Cruise and George Clooney, but I just know they will find a way to manage without that 6th or 7th house. 

    • drklassen

       Analogy fail.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      There’s a big difference between taking a car without permission thereby depriving the owner of said car…or building an exact replica of said car with your own materials and time, which doesn’t affect the original car’s owner one whit.

      Even your sarcasm is a fail.

    • Mwhahaha

      Disregard what I said. Mwhahaha here. Had just taken my meds an hour ago, everything’s back to ok.

      Man you won’t believe what you said when Dissociative Identity Disorder starts to take over you

      Peace Mwhahaha

  • Mr.Afghanistan

    Even if a movie was 1$, it would Pirate it :P hahaha

    Of course, i will not pirate if they give movies and TV shows free of charge just like Torrent Sites ;)

  • Montisaquadeis

    I have purchased the full physical albums of my favorite band CREED and I try to watch shows on sites like Hulu and Crackle when I can and I use crackle for movies like ghostbusters. I use file hosts to download fansubbed anime that do not have offical subs because the shows are japanese dub only without a enlgish sub offer. They only bring a fraction of whats out there to other countries.

    So yeah some of would pay for our content if its available to us in a way that is conveint see hulu and crackle and we have a choice. and is available in a way that is enjoyable for us. short 10 second ads is fine while several mins worth is no longer feasible in the day and age we live in.

  • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

    Anything new?

  • Your_Mother

    shutdown HollyWood Please.. we don’t want more.. Nazis from the moon and so on..
    It’s just diminuishing people’s IQ..
    stop it.. for the sake of our lives.

    Independents/Europeans/ Latins do better movies.. nowadays.. than those crapy.. mainstreamers.. that cost millions of dollars, and have no return later on.

    http://iguru.gr/2012/07/a-crash-course-in-online-piracy-infographic/

    • Anyone

      funny, Iron Sky was not made in Hollywood ;)

      • http://twitter.com/DarkNinja45 DW_

         Iron Sky was also a good movie.

        • Anyone

          yes it was
          but he was complaining about “hollywood moon nazis” and I wanted to set the record straight

  • http://cheapassfiction.com/ Aelius Blythe

    I don’t think the results are that paradoxical.  It makes perfect sense to me.  For me – and I think for many – access to cultural material trumps just about everything else, including price.

    No access = no sale.  Period.  
    No access = make access (e.g. through torrents etc.)

    But as companies start waking up to the fact that they need to give access to their material in order for people to buy it (no shit) and as we are seeing material (slowly) becoming more available, BUYING something becomes an actual option.  

    And when buying is an option, price is often the first consideration.

  • Alex

    I’m fine calling myself a pirate, I download about 30+ movies a year, most of the AAA games and most of the TV I follow.

    BUT

    I have about 200 games on steam, a DVD collection that’s overflowing, a bluray collection that just exists in piles around the house because I have dvds everywhere, I have a netflix subscription, I have a sky HD subscription and I frequently rent blurays from the local blockbuster.

    Money is not the reason I pirate things, I pirate due to lack of demos (games), lack of availability (most TV shows are months behind the US) and just wanting to try something before I buy it.

    • xmichaelx

       Agreed. For years I didn’t buy any media at all, and didn’t pirate. Now I pirate, and buy a ton of media (mainly music & ebooks). The RIAA should be subsidizing Pirate Bay, considering the amount of $$ I’ve spent on music thanks to TPB.

  • Pingback: Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First | Best Seedbox

  • Geep

    I’ve been saying it all along.. 

    Im in Canada and I use paypal…  Itunes doesnt accept pay pal in canada
    and the other crap services only let you watch the videos on special players

    I would gladly pay for overpriced garbage media, but there is no option out there for me so F them, If they want to waste money on suing people and not focus on availability steal away

    • ByStander

       *I would gladly pay for overpriced garbage media*

      What a nice chap you are.!!

  • Pingback: Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First | The Illuminati

  • Guest

    “Interestingly the issue of price didn’t come in the top three reasons why people pirate.”

    “A significant 72% said that movie and TV show downloading could be reduced by lowering the prices of official content”

    These two pieces of data lead me to question the amount of meaning we can draw from this study. It seems odd that there is a difference between the justification individuals give for their piracy, and the motivations they ascribe to other pirates. This dissociation suggests to me that participants were perhaps not being completely honest when filling out their survey. If individuals didn’t see price as a reason for their own piracy, then why would they see reducing prices as a good way to reduce piracy? Two answers strike me. The first is that everyone vastly misjudges everyone else, and very few people really care about the price. The second, and the one that seems more likely to me, is that people’s stated justifications for their actions are different from their actual motivations, and their actual motivations for their actions include the price. This seems more likely because humans tend to give justifications that are different from their motivations in any instance where shame/guilt could be involved, and because piracy is a crime and is not looked upon favorably in all social situations, it seems likely that people would give false justifications. (Note: I am not saying piracy should involve shame, I am saying that its current circumstances are consistent with situations that produce shame, so many people will and do feel it, even if they shouldn’t).

    To make this short, the data is very interesting, but I’m going to take the part where participants discuss their own justifications with a grain of salt.

    • Guest

      Interestingly the issue of price didn’t come in the top three reasons why people pirate. However, when the pirates were asked what could be done to reduce the consumption of illicit content it was a different story.A significant 72% said that movie and TV show downloading could be reduced by lowering the prices of official content, with 47% stating that offering the latest material could also reduce piracy.You’re seeing a contradiction where there is none, bro. The price issue isn’t in the top 3 reasons why Danes pirate, but it’s still  an issue. That’s why 72% said that lowering prices would lower piracy.  You’re acting like because it wasn’t in the top 3, that means it isn’t an issue at all. And that’s just wrong. 

      • Guest

        Interestingly the issue of price didn’t come in the top three reasons why people pirate. However, when the pirates were asked what could be done to reduce the consumption of illicit content it was a different story.A significant 72% said that movie and TV show downloading could be reduced by lowering the prices of official content, with 47% stating that offering the latest material could also reduce piracy.You’re seeing a contradiction where there is none, bro.The price issue isn’t in the top 3 reasons why Danes pirate, but it’s still an issue.That’s why 72% said that lowering prices would lower piracy. You’re acting like just because it isn’t in the top 3, that means it isn’t an issue at all. And that’s just wrong. (I will not give in to your paragraph killing terrorism, Disqus. I WILL NOT GIVE IN. )

        • Guest

          NOPE.

          Interestingly the issue of price didn’t come in the top three reasons why people pirate. However, when the pirates were asked what could be done to reduce the consumption of illicit content it was a different story.

          A significant 72% said that movie and TV show downloading could be reduced by lowering the prices of official content, with 47% stating that offering the latest material could also reduce piracy.

          You’re seeing a contradiction where there is none, bro.

          The price issue isn’t in the top 3 reasons why Danes pirate, but it’s still an issue. That’s why 72% said that lowering prices would lower priracy. You’re acting like just because it isn’t in the top 3 , that means it isn’t an issue at all. And that’s just wrong. 

          (Apparently you can’t copy and paste anything from the article into a comment  or Disqus will fuck up your paragraphs no matter what you do. Awesome.)

        • Guest

           Gotta love Disqus, right? Always messing up. Anyway…

          There is a contradiction. Just because price is occasionally brought up as a personal reason for piracy does not mean that the percentage of people who bring up that reason matches the percentage of people who claim that price is a reason why other people commit piracy. If the majority do not bring up price as a reason for their piracy, but 72% also state that reducing prices can reduce piracy, then there is a significant difference between the number of people identifying it as a personal issue and the number of people identifying it as a difference for other people. I would also like to point out that when people give different answers in the justification for themselves and the motivations for other people for the same action, then they tend to also share the motivation that they ascribe to the social group.

          I’ll have to read the actual numbers to know how big the contradiction between the justification and motivation numbers is, but for now, I’d like to present this quote from the article.

          “‘It is paradoxical that the pirates on one hand do not indicate the
          price as the main reason why they violate the law, while they also say
          that lowering the price would be the best way to reduce piracy,’ says
          Mykland. [head of the agency that did the survey]”

          This statement would not be made if the same percentage of people claimed that price was a personal issue for them as the percentage who claimed that price was an issue for others. Until I look at the numbers from the study directly (and I will, but later), I maintain that my conclusion is reasonable based on the evidence presented by the article.

  • Techie
  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    There’s no such thing as “illegal content”.
    Simple as that!!
    It’s either available and accessible or its not.

    The “content owners” STILL haven’t worked out a fair and decent method of “fair exchange”.  Until they do, torrents of so-called free content will continue regardless of threats, penalties and any other form of social violence.

    I’ve no idea what the solution may be (and it’s not my place to suggest it unless paid to so do), but it’s quite clear the current business model isn’t working. 

    That alone sends the important message for change.  But can these content owners wise-up and cease being so damned greedy?

    I dunno.  Let’s see huh?

    • MaxiMe

      There IS a difference between released-upped DVD rip and pre-release scene.
      Pre-release cannot have been purchased and shared. Therefore, it was obtained illegally, therefore ‘illegal content’ does exist.

      I do agree that if I have purchased a DVD, CD, licence or subscription (TV, cable etc) then I should be able to format shift, record and share if I choose to.

      One way or the other, I have paid for it and I should be able to store it as and where I choose, and if others want to have gander at it, that they should be free to do so. If it has been paid for, by me, then I see that uploaded file as mine and as legitimate as the original; unlike a car I do not expect to be paid for resale…because I am not asking for money for my file (THAT would be an act of piracy).

      I would hope others who upload pay for their original…thank you for sharing.

      • Anyone

        by your definition most content is illegal because I simply cannot buy it even if I wanted to, but I can download it in HD no problem and no questions asked

        • MaxiMe

          Not really. If you mean TV or cable content then, it’s either free-to-air or subscription or licenced, therefore it’s been paid for.

        • Anyone

          no, I mean I couldn’t buy 1080p downloads of the movies or TV series I want
          I’m not going to all the trouble of buying the Bluray and ripping them myself, that’s a major waste of time

          as long as piracy offers the better product I’m sticking with that
          once the industry wises up and delivers what I want (I guess by that time it is 4K resolution ;)) they won’t see my money

      • Fredrika

        > “There IS a difference between released-upped DVD rip and pre-release scene. Pre-release cannot have been purchased and shared. Therefore, it was obtained illegally, therefore ‘illegal content’ does exist.”

        Actually no, if we should stick to the facts. That the psychical copy is ripped pre-release does not equal that the content is illegal, nor does it necessarily mean that the copy was obtained illegally. That it isn’t yet officially offered for sale doesn’t mean that it’s automatically illegal to obtain the copy regardless of method.

        • MaxiMe

          I accept your reasoning, but I was referring to material/physical
          carriers a person  actually purchased, as opposed to an ethereal,
          non-retail-so-not-purchasable  share. Both were obtained, are obtainable, but only one is
          ‘officially’ obtainable.

          I only maintain that what I purchase should be mine to do with as I see fit.

  • Andrew me

    I would not mind paying for content on torrent sites if i was guaranteed fast download speeds and access to all the content that is there at the moment. The problem is that there are too many gatekeepers that want the system to stay as it was and they would rather allow people to pirate and call them pirates rather than give in to what the population wants.

    They are digging there own graves and not allowing the internet to come up with ways that people can pay for what they consume, maybe it is because there is only 15% of the population pirating, maybe it is because they are continuing to steal large amounts of money that should be going to the artists , whichever it is it is cumming to an end as more and more people realsie that content is available free.

    I guess when piracy is maybe 60% of all entertainment consumption maybe then they will realsie that there making money from the artists work is coming to an end and they will be forced to come up with business models that can compete with free, until then they will continue to steal money from artists and fill there bank accounts.

    And artists need to realize that until they start donations as part of there business model they will not be getting the compensation people actually do want to give them.

  • Blackbeard

    I have been a full time hardcore pirate for… well… ever (I’m 24). I recently decided to join netflix to try and contribute something back for all the media I consume. They don’t support Linux, which is what I use (and I have no intention of going back to windows) because Netflix uses Microsofts piece of shit Silverlight plugin with DRM, Microsoft won’t make a linux Silverlight and the open source equivelant of Silverlight doesn’t include DRM… so netflix won’t work with that. This would be trivially easy for Netflix to resolve… but, for the mean time, I shall return to The Pirate Bay. Hassle free, DRM free and very good value for money ;)

    AAARGH!

    • BobButtons

      A virtual machine seems like an extreme just for Netflix… does WINE or something like it work for Silverlight? I don’t know anything about it, just heard it mentioned in various places.

      • Blackbeard

        Nope Silverlight doesn’t work on WINE, I gave it a try and googled to see if anyone else had any more luck. I was planning to do it on a virtual machine (I actually already have an XP virtual machine made) but I decided fuck it, I’ll join them when they make the right choice… in other words when they ditch DRM and choose to welcome linux users (which would be trivially easy for them to do, it is an active decision on their part not to). I wrote them a letter and also signed an online petition that is being sent to them about it.

      • Gear Mentation

         No, according to the people who tried, Wine doesn’t actually work with Silverlight/Netflix.  There is no option for Linux.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Generally speaking any DRM options will run badly under most Linux distros. What the DRM actually does is that it usurps control over certain key components in your computer. Linux is expressly built so as to not allow programs to overreach their authority.

        And that leads right back to using a virtual box running windows.

    • Gear Mentation

       I just cancelled Netflix for exactly the same reason: I’m switching to linux.  But also because the quality of Netflix on a slow connection is very bad.  And because their selection sucks compared to piracy.

      • Baba

         I cancelled my netflix for 2 reasons, 1 I do not want to give financial support to hollywood and their corrupt practices and 2 the selection of shows and movies on the uk version is pathetic.

        • Lordhoff31

          agreed, the uk selection is was nothing short of a second hand dvd shop. Who the f**k wants to watch a film called “Eyeborgs”

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/OVL7ZVGYF27VDINLMQTBSIFUYE Funhh

          LOL, ‘Eyeborgs’ …I’m totally watching that now. Seriously.
          Gonna spark 2 doobs and drink a 40 to ‘Eyeborgz’!

  • Wallace

    Some restaurants post a rule that forbids you from sharing your meal with another guest. The penalty when caught? You get billed for a second meal or you’re asked to leave

    We can argue about whether that’s fair or not, but one thing is for sure – the penalty is so reasonable there will never be a mass revolt against it.

    If every caught file-sharer were billed for the cost of the product and nothing more, we would not be having this discussion.

    On the other hand, any restaurant that described such activity as “stealing food” would suffer some very serious consequences.

    • Blackbeard

      VERY well said!

    • Techanon

      I never encountered a restaurant with such a rule…

      • Anyone

        it’s fairly common over here
        you don’t get charged for the whole meal, but you get charged for the “empty plate” which is usually 2-4€

      • Ewfgv

         Imagine a buffet…

  • Frozendragon498

    The movie and music industry has consumed all my trust in them. I will continue to pirate even if they lower the price. If they really want my money then they need to disband all lobby originations and sell there work under licenses like creative commons.

  • Wallace

    And for the record, I’d rather pay a reasonable price for HQ torrents than deal with the  system we have now that makes me look all over the place for LQ shit. But nobody sells official torrents.

  • Gae

    I would say that report is pretty accurate, a few years back I used to pirate a lot of games because if I bought the official versions they often came with masses of drm that was totally annoying, intrusive and in some cases even a straight up security risk.

    Lately a lot of game companies are realising that drm is bad and are actively advertising the lack of drm in their games as a feature. It is this along with services such as Steam who hold regular discounted sales and have a lot of added value and functionality that now means I buy just about every game I play.
    I have instant availability, fast downloads, reasonable pricing and all kinds of added extras so I actually feel like the real deal is worth paying for over the pirated versions.

    The movie and music insustrys however are a long way behind offering anything that even slightly relates to being a decent service for customers, instead of offering a better service they chose to try and force through oppressive laws in order to force people to have no option but to use their poor, overpriced offerings if they want entertaining.

    In fact their actions over the last few years have done them more harm than good because now even if they do offer me the kind of service I want, I am not going to use it because I have zero respect for them due to previous behaviour.
    I truly expect in 20 – 30 years time when people look back and study what happened with the growth of filesharing and the way that it was handled by the movie/music industrys it will be understood that they made just about every mistake possible and it will be universally accepted that they misjudged their responses on a huge scale. The blame will not lie with pirates but with industrys short sightedness.

  • Pingback: Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Mwhahaha

    It’s the contract services which piss me off most I think, especially the new Sky movies online.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    Most ‘pirates’ are already legal because they are paying for cable or satellite TV subscriptions. It’s time to stop with the fantasies of the big media conglomerates that they are ‘losing money’. Most times, they are losing one cent, they want to pull money out of people’s pockets just because people want to watch something on a different device or format.

    Hell no! That isn’t the way it works. ONE time payment for ONE TV show, music track, or movie.

    • WasterOfTime

       I apply the same logic with some games on my machine. I essentially “demo” a game with a full version. I like it enough, I’m willing to shell out some cash so I can actually legally own it, and not need to have additional space wasted on my HD to store the ISO file to play it or reinstall it post-uninstallation.

      Of course, I usually wait for a Humble Indie Bundle to release, or I wait for Steam to have a big sale or one of their weekend deals or something to roll along. Hey, I’m still paying for it, am I not? I may have ‘pirated’ the material, but I still atone for my sins by purchasing it when I can afford to (convenience or when I got the cash), so to put it.

      Consider that if something is pirated, and yet not paid back, the content sucked; if people pay for it post-piracy, then it was actually really good. If people buy it rather than pirate it, it’s fucking art, and it would be disrespectful to pirate it.

      • Ogra

        If people buy it rather than pirate it, it’s fucking art,
        and it would be disrespectful to pirate it.

        That’s your opinion. Many people claim that pirating something against the wishes of the creator is very disrespectful (and some creators, particularly among game companies, don’t want people to pirate their stuff). I have no more reason to accept their personal morality than I do to accept yours. Personally, I don’t see respect for the work to have anything to do with money. As for respect for the creator, I can’t say I care any more about disrespecting them by pirating and refusing to pay than I do about pirating their work at all.

    • Guest

      “Most ‘pirates’ are already legal because they are paying for cable or satellite TV subscriptions.”

      Kidwell, I will ask once again for you to cite sources and explain your logic here. We have established past threads that less than half of the pirates in the U.S. have cable or satellite packages with dedicated music and movie channels, and you continually refuse to acknowledge videogame piracy. You’re making a defined claim; if it’s as evident as you say it shouldn’t be hard to show some evidence to prove it. Please do. Then I could stop writing this every time you write the same BS claim.

  • Anonymouse

    The day I can download TV shows and movies in HD (720p and 1080p) with Digital HD sound (at least DTS-HD or DD2.0/5.1) with no DRM on it, and can order cable TV where I can pick and choose individual channels that I want to have in my package (which would drastically reduce the price, hopefully, since I’d only want like 15-20 channels), is the day I go legal.

    Until then: YO HO HO HO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A PIRATE’S LIFE FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Baba

      Keep dreaming, they operate one of the only businesses in the world that does not care what customers want.

  • Pingback: Torrent News » Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First

  • Gear Mentation

    Of course we want to go legal, but legal means “just as good a pirate” which means high definition movies and TV available for download to your computer, or streaming as you choose.  And for an extra fee, say a dollar for a movie, you get a file without DRM.  

    • Gae

      Pay to remove DRM? That is part of the problem, anything with DRM straight out of the box is inferior to a pirated version.

      Charging even more just so you can use your purchase how you want is stupid. It should come drm free as default.

      • Gear Mentation

        I’m not against reasonable pricing.  DRM in such a case would just be like the “pro” versions of paid software.  There is nothing wrong with that.  We need to remember that paying for stuff is okay, so long as the price is very reasonable -so that a teen can afford it easily even when you put together all the media needs of a teen.  DRM isn’t intrinsically bad, it’s the way it has been used that is bad.

        • kwame

          Copyright protection is supposed to last only for a limited time, after which the work passes into the public domain. See, e.g., the Berne Convention, Art. 7 (1886) and the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8 (1787).
          But DRM lasts forever. The work never passes into the public domain.
          Ergo, DRM is intrinsically bad.

        • Anyone

          @5df6a1533a23a6c48f967410b0d33db7:disqus
          that “limited time” is life+70 years, which is fucking nuts
          it’s about time that gets reduced to about 5 years, that would make the system much fairer

  • WasterOfTime

    I pirate mostly material that is otherwise extremely difficult to obtain/view by legal means (not collectibles, but what was once common material that has yet to have a DVD release even). Like a historian, mostly classic shows no longer on the air (Cartoon Cartoons from Cartoon Network or old [as] shows, and even total classic Nickelodeon shows like The Adventures of Pete & Pete and Space Cases); in other cases, I also scout around for animes that aren’t on the air over here in the states, yet have English translations.

    In other cases, some shows, you miss one episode in a lineup and you can’t catch a repeat/rerun of it, you’re screwed story-wise, and the show’s dead from there on (applies to any show, especially if it’s over 100+ episodes long, and has a story throughout the entire thing; handfuls animes are notorious for this, and most TV networks aren’t fans of anime in the first place over in the good ol’ US.

    For example, miss an episode of Yu-Gi-Oh! (Just got into it near the end of the series, according to the wiki (Gee, thanks); 4kids or not, not the point), and I have not a clue what’s going on in that gap, besides what the previews show, and they only play that episode once the entire run, especially being a Saturday morning cartoon, let’s say (which in this case, is so). However, there are tons and tons of reruns of the same episode of last week for shows on all other channels during the weekend and spamming the channel until the new episode comes along. Look, I know you loved watching last week’s episode of Tosh.0, but do you need to watch it 4-6 times during the weekend, and 8-10 times before the next episode? I want my Futurama! And even that doesn’t get as much love as the others (about half as much spamming or less; usually replaced with Scary Movie or some equally unfunny movie apparently on a channel where comedy is supposed to be paramount). :facepalm:, Piracy is all too attractive now, and I need another big-ass harddrive to store more good content, and run my own personal TV network/channel designed for myself specifically (not selling to others, mind you; however, I am willing to share my screen with anyone who visits, free of charge and commercial bullcrap that advertises things I have no need for whatsoever).

    Sorry about that rant, but I just needed to air that out. Companies that complain about piracy and whatnot, GROW. THE FUCK. UP! adapt to the times. Things change, people change, and the roses that were once your business models wilt. If evolution has anything to show, it’s that adaptaion prolongs survival. The more you resist it, the more you dig your own grave and guarantee your extinction. You want to survive, sort. yourselves. out. Stop being the rich-kid bullies, and be benevolent for once in your miserable lives, and not for public appearances only, but genuinely. We respect those who respect others. Why do I pirate? Because I lost respect for you old business “tycoons”.

    • Asdf

       I’ve made the experience that you can easily get old shows by simply asking the tv station that aired them. Usually they either have the rights to it or will help you further as to how to obtain the content.

      Still, convenience is something different…

  • SoothMonkey

    Current ‘entertainment’ industries (film, music, sports, books, magazines, etc) are massive criminal organizations that have hijacked the process with which art is brought to you. They have perverted copyright and trademark laws. They have bought off not only legislative, congressional and judicial administrations in the US but internationally. They stifle competition and technological advancement to keep consumers within an obsolete and inefficient, not to mention laughably corrupt, business model littered with executives who get fat from other peoples creations. They have altered the public perception of what constitutes beauty and value. They glorify violence and excess. They generate an atmosphere of exorbitant spending and reckless drug infested partying which lead to many early deaths of young artists.

    They’ve spent billions on researchers, specialists, scientists and psychologists to learn what visuals make you go “Ooh!” and what audibles make you go “Aah!” because their job is to keep you distracted until you’re dead. After which they’ll teach your children how to think, what to wear, what to eat, what’s “cool” and “not cool”.. the less people out frolicking around trying to ‘make sense of it all’ the better. Their efforts will continue to create generations of desensitized, apathetic and mindless drones of consumption. Few of which will ever aspire to understand the nature of their own existence and that of the world around them until it’s too late. What they have done is nothing short of design a carefully tailored human living experience for everyone to be born into and die out of, the duration of which is to be spent.. well.. spending. You’re in the fucking matrix, neo.. you’re being farmed.

    Their ultimate goal is to put a dollar sign on every human sense.. everything you see, hear, touch, taste, smell…  If they could buy the sun and charge you for seeing a sunrise, they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

    Now they want complete control of the internet to provide a quaint and linear virtual experience for all of you.. for a small fee of course.

    and I’m expected to give these people more of my hard earned fake digital money?

    • Lofa

       Can I buy a tinfoil hat from you?

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Unfortunately he isn’t far off the mark. All it takes is a cursory look at the industry history.

        Of course, in this they are not alone. Remember how Microsoft acted before 2010? Recall SCO? AT&T?

        Of course the media industries want to ensure that every man and woman grows up imprinted on their products from the time said person is old enough to watch TV or listen to music. 

        It’s our choice as consumers – and our responsibility – to not let them.

    • blue_bomber

      You’re so right, and your words about senses reminded me of The Case of the Stolen Smell by Ooka Tadasuke [1]. In the case, a chef demands that the smell of the food he cooks be considered his physical property, an absurd claim to be sure, but look where we are today: We have people demanding that information, literally integers, belong to them and others are forbidden from sharing the information with one another, or sometimes even possessing knowledge of a number [2]. The popular rhetoric today intentionally and misleadingly uses terms (“piracy”, “theft”, etc.) that conflate not only the physical and scarce with the immaterial and the infinite, but also activities like sharing and copying with activities like theft and murder.

      Reference:
      [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=676827475 Luke Solis

    “Three quarters believe that more than 25% of Danes are pirates – the actual number is just 15%.”

    and its that 15% that producers bitch about. thus the reason why people have the distorted view of piracy.

  • Tony Smyth

    Why is everybody ignoring the most important part of all of this?

    The Danish government has broken new ground by taking an enlightened approach.
    I salute you Danes.
    If only the rest of us could elect intelligent governments.

    • Fredrika

      > “The Danish government has broken new ground by taking an enlightened approach.”

      There can be more examples, but the Swiss government has done the same thing previously:

      http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/

      • Tony Smyth

        Okay, but I thought the most important thing was that the Danish government didn’t make decisions on the advice of lobbyists alone. Isn’t that what’s wrong everywhere else?

        • Fredrika

          > “Okay, but I thought the most important thing was that the Danish government didn’t make decisions on the advice of lobbyists alone.”

          Obviously, i didn’t deny that. I only commented on that Denmark wasn’t necessarily first with choosing a healthy approach.

          > “Isn’t that what’s wrong everywhere else?

          Unfortunately so, in most countries. But things are definitely starting to look better, at least in the worlds strongest economy, the EU, much thanks to the Pirate Parties, in particular the Swedish and German ones.

          I personally look forward to the next EU elections(in addition to every single German election), when Pirate Parties will run for parliament with candidates from every single EU country, not just one country as the last time(in which they easily got elected). There’s a strong likelihood of 50-150 pirates entering parliament after that election, and then things will start to happen in an extremely fast pace.

  • Lololololol002

    “Convenience, Choice & Availability”

    Ya right!!! More like don’t wanna fork the money for it.

    • Anyone

      why are you so stubborn to ignore evidence?

  • HughMyron

    Look at the video game industry. I pay and download games from Steam because it’s convenient, selection is huge and I can get things quickly. It’s awesome. So much more of a pain to search for pirated video games – especially if I want to play online.

    If movies and TV shows could follow the same idea, we’d be in good shape. I’d also love to be able to pay for a couple of TV channels and leave the rest alone. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry is stuck in its old ways due to contracts and greed.

  • ThuggleS

    Just like another commentator above, I pirate crappy things and purchase good stuff legally. For example, right now I am downloading Fallout: New Vegas Ultimate Edition from Steam (legally) even though I could just as easily download it illegally – but it’s a great game, and the developers deserve my money for it.

    • Anyone

      also, game developers do not want to censor the web or treats its customers as criminals (except EA, of course)

      • Guest

         EA is horrible, what a surprise. The company known for crazy drm, treating non US customers as second class people, trying to buy other companies and accused of monopoly, underpaying programmers and spending more on marketing than development also happens to be one of those investing on web censorship lobby.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Dito. I didn’t even go the steam route, but pre-ordered fallout 3.

      After that I also got the cracked version from TPB as that one’s far easier to mod the hell out of, but that’s a different story.

  • TPB Free

    In iTunes and Spotify there aren’t many Eurodance songs. The only option to have the songs unavailable is to pirate.

  • DerkWann

    Yeah but keepin it free is whats hard man. WOw.
    Now-Anon.tk

  • Guest

    This is a no brainer.
    If the ones complaining about thepiratebay used that energy to set up a free alternative that was all legal and safe a lot of people would prefer it.
    They could make a lot of money of personalized adds and information the same way google and facebook do, viral marketing would get cheaper and a lot more people would become their customers.

    The war on piracy has nothing to do with money or business and it is all about control, censorship and corrupt interests.

    Some people buy stuff at the store when it’s new, shiny and expensive. They enjoy walking out of the store with the bag and something nice.
    Others prefer to wait for a price drop or rush to the sales.
    Others buy used, refurbished or bargain bin deals through the internet.
    Others prefer a direct, easy and all online cheap alternative.

    Right now the control of media is still somewhat tightly controlled but the general trend is towards a diversification. There will be more competition and new alternatives that tap all the different markets.
    Megabox could be a huge market changer, finding new ways to provide and profit  off media, that’s if the US government doesn’t kill it before it’s born of course.
    But the new alternatives are unavoidable no matter how much the old labels and studios try to keep all control centralized in a few channels they own.
    Their vertically integrated business won’t last.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery


      If the ones complaining about thepiratebay used that energy to set up a free alternative that was all legal and safe a lot of people would prefer it. ”

      The problem is that the people whining their hearts out about TPB also tend to be fierce rivals. Even getting EMI to sit down with SONY or Warner more often than not means that what you get could easily be aired as a Jerry Springer-show.

      That’s why Spotify had to dicker for a dozen years with literally hundreds of stakeholders before even getting their service off the ground. And why they have to repeat this process every time the service is to be launched in another country.

      Needless to say this means that the “services” they can offer always ends up with severe limitations in how complete they are.

      • Guest

        Same with iTunes, I remember reading that Steve Jobs had to go through a lot to convince the big labels. And now that one is huge.
        Label specific stores would never be able to compete with big libraries where users can contribute with anything so eventually they’ll have to learn to work together for better results.
        They have read about that game theory thing.

  • Jhkyu

    I pirate everything. I want it I take it. I steal a couple of things from stores too if I can be bothered. The only thing I really pay for is whores and drugs.

    • Wibble

      Oh, father! I am so ashamed.

      • foff

        I don’t pay whores i get them for free!

  • MiL0

    I’m not sure if anyone else follows the same procedure as I do but if I can’t pirate most things I won’t buy them, period. Mainly due to a lack of quality. For example – if I go onto The Pirate Bay, I will browse through the selection of movies but none of them I would ever buy.

  • Guest

    god is not real it just to make you be a good boy sorry people 

  • Guest

    the bilderberg group evil

  • ScrewEwe2

    I really don’t bother with downloading movies or TV shows via µTorrent because I use µTorrent primarily for obtaining or sharing music and programs. I have over 650 audio CD’s that I paid for. Over the years I’ve bought all of Zeppelins catalouge on LP’s, eight track’s, casette’s and then CD’s and that’s just one small example. Also had a ton of 45′s too when I was younger, so I don’t feel guilty at all downloading music, because I have supported a lot of bands and music producers with their ever changing formats over the years. We’ve all bought albums or CD’s with 2 good songs and 8 filler songs. The last CD I paid for was in 1999. When did Napster come out?, 1999. I only have about 80,000 HQ mp3′s and 10,000 FLAC files in addition to OGG and M4A files which I’m sure is tiny compared to most pirates, but I’m sure that I could never consecutively listen to all of it in my lifetime. After a while, obtaining music is more like an Easter Egg hunt than having content I can’t live without. I have a lot of music, that after I have acquired it, wonder what the hell I was thinking?, I’m not even in to them all that much, but the hunt goes on.

    I have Netflix and for $16.55 a month I get streaming content and 1 disc at a time home rental. I used to pay for 6 disc’s at a time home rental. I use Redbox and Blockbuster to rent mainly DVD’s but will rent a BD if it’s a visually rich movie like Avatar. I usually rent 3 Redbox movies on average per week. My library system has a huge collection of DVD’s also. I have built up an enormous library of movies and TV series over the last 8 years that are mainly on external drives now since the price of external drives have come down and drive sizes have gone up. I also pay roughly $93.00 per month for cable with a great HD package. Up until 2004 I used to pay for Showtime, Starz, TMC, HBO etc. but realized that what was being shown on the premium cable movie channels was usually about a year behind what I was getting through Netflix, so it was a waste of money to continue paying for the premium channels. In one way or another, I have paid for all the video content I have consumed and if I want to make a digital copy of some of it for viewing again at a later time, or for sharing with others, I Damn Well Will, regardless of any laws or stipulations.

    I’m willing to risk my hide for music and programs but I’m going to continue getting the majority of my video as listed above unless it’s a title I can’t get any other way.

    Fuck em if they can’t take a joke.
    A Proud American Pirate.

    • GeorgeDWarren

      thank god you havent discovered xbmc addons.

  • Guest

    bohemian grove

    the bilderberg group 

    skull and bones

    own the world and the banks 

    • WasterOfTime

      We gotta do something about them. Mail them a game of Monopoly and watch them play against each other. I wonder which one will claim Banker position, and how the game will unfold? I would pay to watch the shitstorm unfold outta that.

  • Tabris

     I live in New Zealand. I’ve always gone out of my way to buy things the legal way. If a movie or show isn’t available in my country, I’ll go hunting for a way to import it, even though I could surely have it on my hard drive in no time flat if I wanted to. Now, however, the US IP chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership wants to make it illegal for me to watch imported, out of region DVDs. This will not only greatly limit the availability of content to my little country, but will also make me a criminal for watching the large number of DVDs I’ve legally purchased up to this point!

    If my country ends up with law changes like this thanks to TPP, it won’t be about price for me. Not at all.

    • foff

      You are just some maafia troll, I doubt you even live in NZ 

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Same here. The price point may be important for political inactives. I’m more leaning toward using filesharing as a method of civil disobedience by now.

      • GeorgeDWarren

        I find it terribly hard to believe that you have paid for anything non-physical in your entire life.
        Why? because your words show that you are, at your core, an anarchist that refuses to pay for something he can ‘steal’, and uses mumbo-jumbo logic to justify his actions, so he can continue to live happily in his deluded world.
        IE you are a terrorist with an immoral cause, the need to see people who have spent a lot of time and money devolping something, not compensated for their efforts. You are spitting on their livelihood, and their families, and others that depend on them. I’m not talking about the huge multi-corps, i’m talking about the indie developer of apps, the indie songwriter etc. etc.
        You cannot have filesharing legal and not affect these individuals as well. Either its legal for everyone or illegal for everyone.
        If something is not available in your region, rather that immediately resorting to piracy, why not spend a little time and effort in getting a proxy/vpn service, setup a US itunes account or hulu plus or netflix, and then paying them??
        Yes i believe that distribution should be more fair, you should be able to buy anything from anywhere, but until that day comes, there are still ways to buy things even if its not avaiable easily, just takes a bit of effort, instead of resorting to piracy immediately.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I find it terribly hard to believe that you have attended any education higher than grade school judging from your increasing reliance on ad hominem, straw man argumentation and outright ignorance.

          1) Copyright infringement still isn’t theft. Not morally, not legally, and not by any dictionary definition. Why should anyone bother listening to you at all when you start off by demonstrating that you don’t even have a basic grasp of the language you’re typing in? 

          2) Terrorism is also a word you don’t seem to understand. It’s defined as “Politically Motivated Violence with intent to terrorize”. Again you come up with a personal definition of the word which makes as much sense as describing an “apple” as “beating”.

          3) FYI I have indeed paid for “non-physical goods”. Indeed, I’ll bet I pay more so than you do, as it appears my spending habits actually exceed the average norm by quite a bit. I am however, quite selective.
          The main reason I joined the pirates was quite simply because although I couldn’t have cared less about filesharing to start with i took great offense at the actions of copyright stakeholders.

          I suggest you go right back to grade school and re-learn the english language. Alongside a general understanding about proportionality of law, what “general rights” actually mean, and how they can be applied without breaking a basic legal paradigm.

          That said, thank you very much for proving my points by displaying your rhetoric to every reader on this forum.

  • Durfox

    I have no interest in going legit. I like free.

  • foff

    Bullshit!  No one except the mafiaa likes the current copyright law so who wants to abide by it?  Just like blank cassette tapes the mafiaa needs to quit fighting the goddamn internet.  We are not going to change.  Unless you want to give to us free on demand we will continue to pirate.  You are wasting your fucking lives trying to police the internet.  You would have better luck trying to outlaw sand on the beach.

  • GeorgeDWarren

    Maybe most pirates do want to go legal, but not any of the idiots that have commented on these past few articles, they just want an excuse to steal (or should i say infringe copyright law).
    Let’s face it, some people are just cheap asses who are morally bankrupt and will say anything to justify their criminal conduct. Just like inner city gangsta’s who cry about ‘the man’ trying to put them down. get over it already, stop making excuses and man up.

    • foff

      Depends on your perspective.  Before the internet you did accuse anyone who checked something out of the library or who copied a friends tape a thief.  I have a bigger library to borrow from so what?  Your definition of what is moral is not mine.  That is the problem with all you god wad freaks who think your definition of morality is somehow superior to another persons definition. 

      • GeorgeDWarren

        most of society agrees with me, thus the law stands, if you dont like it, move to somalia, enjoy the trip and good riddance.

        • Anyone

          I don’t think most of society agrees with you
          most of society just doesn’t know how the MAFIAA screws them over

        • Guest

          By what metric or survey did you come to this conclusion? SOPA was killed off, ACTA was voted against – did most of society agree with you? You don’t seem like a SOPA detractor to me.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          SOPA and ACTA are infringing on freedom of speech and censorship, as a tool to PREVENT copyright infringement, not the core intellectual property laws themselves you numbskull.

        • foff

          Most of society does not agree or piracy would not be an issue

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Actually by all accounts most of society does not believe in copyright law or immaterial property law as currently practiced.

          As can clearly be seen the way the law has always been changed to accomodate such things as cassette hometaping for instance. Every time a new technology has appeared we get the same tiresome story. Which always ends with the “pirates” walking off with a resounding win.

    • Fredrika

      > “Maybe most pirates do want to go legal, but not any of the idiots that have commented on these past few articles, they just want an excuse to..”

      Please learn how society works regarding in what direction prohibition in law affects and what it is that should be justified. It is never the action, it is always the prohibition. People do not need to make any excuses for manufacturing items with their own property, that they already own, as people filesharing does. The justification that should me made is regarding why they shouldn’t be allowed to, and that justification has failed completely according to the rules for how to draft legitimate legislation.

      > “..steal (or should i say infringe copyright law).”

      Well that depends on how ignorant and dishonest you are. Since the discussion is about a judicial aspect of an act, the correct judicial term should obviously be used, unless you want to resort to logical fallacies, as in guilt by association. That would be where ignorance or dishonesty comes in.

      > “Let’s face it, some people are just cheap asses..”

      Spending your money wisely is the cornerstone of capitalism, even when it means saving money by manufacturing an item or service yourself instead of buying it. Do you have a problem with capitalism and people wanting to save money? Are you advocating communism?

      > “..who are morally bankrupt..”

      That people doesn’t share your personal and apparently ignorant and confused moral does not mean that they are morally bankrupt.

      As for the following part of the answer, stop placing replies to me as an answer to someone else, when there are several places in the thread where you could have placed it to me.

      > “These scholars are far far far smarter than you, they have debated this endlessly,  and if the majority of these people, whose speciality is copyright, agree that it can be a kind of property..”

      I have never denied that the copyright monopoly is a piece of property, because it is a piece of property, intangible such.

      > “..thus can be subjected to theft.”

      Another fact which i have not denied, the copyright monopoly can obviously be stolen from it’s owner. But that does not mean that all crimes that has been committed against that property automatically is theft.

      The acts and crimes of arson and
      vandalism are committed against property, but that doesn’t make those acts for
      theft, now does it? Please stop reading on Wikipedia
      if you can’t understand what it says, or if you are unable to draw
      logical conclusions from what you read.

      > “No doubt copyright laws should be reformed and the lengths limited, but nobody is saying filesharing should be outright legalised..”

      Hundreds of millions of people are saying just that, hundreds of political parties around the world is saying that, the only growing political group in the parliament of the worlds strongest economy are saying just that, in addition to filesharing already being fully legal in many countries in the world. Nobody? How ignorant are you?

      > “..thats just immoral and stupid.”

      Your personal and subjective moral isn’t necessarily shared by all others, do you not understand the concept of moral? That you personally believe that something is stupid doesn’t necessarily make it so.

      > “basically, even if copyright law is reformed to such an extreme level, that anything older than 6 months is in the public domain..”

      The copyright monopoly can, and already does in many countries, differentiate between profit and non-profit use if intellectual works. I don’t think there is any widespread political movements that suggest 6 months copyright for the profit parts, which are the parts were the money is made.

      > “..people will still pirate the crap out of ‘avengers’..”

      If the copyright monopolies stops regulating non-profit use in all countries, not just some as today, there will be no more piracy among ordinary people.

      > “..why? cause people are scum.”

      Not everyone shares your opinion that performing non-profit infringements or legal copying makes you a scum. Actually, very few does.

      >But dont you understand, if piracy was legal, it wouldnt prevent one sale, it would prevent ALL sales!”

      It would not prevent one single sale. It would offer competition to sales, but competition does not make all possible different sales impossible. In reality it works very well.

      Secondly, there’s not one shred of evidence that supports the thesis that legalized filesharing would constitute a problem to neither society, the economy, culture, the creators, the content industry’s current record revenues or the goal with copyright.

      That you personally believe otherwise, based on ignorance and denial of reality apparently, does not make it so.

      > “The only way piracy can benefit anyone is if its illegal, not legal.”

      If it’s legal it’s not piracy.

      • GeorgeDWarren

        oh shut up fredrika, you’re an idiot thats trying to turn apples into oranges.
        puhleeze.

        i agree copyright law should be amended and limited, but i dont agree with what you have to say, whereas filesharing movies, games, music should be completely legal, it just defies common sense.

        you say it wont prevent even one single sale? again pls use common sense!!!
        why would anyone pay for something that they can get identically, in the same package, in the same delivery method legally, if they could get it for free?
        common sense dictates that ofcourse sales would suffer, and in a big way, there is no proof needed, this is common sense.

        and pls dont use that weak tap water vs bottle water argument, water is not unique and people are paying for the packaging and marketing, the coolness factor and convenience of having the water bottled for you in different sizes. in some cases the water is sourced from springs, another factor.

        • Fredrika

          > “i agree copyright law should be amended and limited, but i dont agree with what you have to say, whereas filesharing movies, games, music should be completely legal..”

          Where did i say it should be that?

          > “..it just defies common sense.”

          It does not among those that actually has common sense. As you have proven quite well now, you’re not one of them.

          > “you say it wont prevent even one single sale? again pls use common sense!!!”

          Correct. Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word prevent? Since the possibility is still there, it has not been prevented.

          > “why would anyone pay for something that they can get identically, in the same package, in the same delivery method legally, if they could get it for free?”

          Because they feel that the goods or services that is offered is worth money, obviously.

          > “common sense dictates that ofcourse sales would suffer..”

          Sales of one single business model, the sales of the service of distributing information on-line than can be used to manufacture digital copies. But that’s one single business model among many many, that are built up around the use of intellectual works, and than one single business model might die isn’t a problem, if all the other business models continue to function. And already today the larger parts of the content industry’s revenues are coming from other business models than sales of digital copies, so there really isn’t any problem if that particular single business model dies.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/OVL7ZVGYF27VDINLMQTBSIFUYE Funhh

        This balloonhead again. Go on, blow your air, balloonhead.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery


      Let’s face it, some people are just cheap asses who are morally bankrupt and will say anything to justify their criminal conduct. ”

      It’s a bit rich hearing the word “moral argument” coming from someone who repeatedly uses the wifebeater argument regarding why we suddenly can’t afford the “luxury” of freedom of communication.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Ahh, yes. Finding it awfully hard to let go of that “theft” argument, are you?

      How about your pegging people with a dissenting opuinion as “terrorists”?

      Or do you reserve that particular slur only for people who beat you over the head with facts?

  • Guest

    People who insist that all this is about wanting stuff free are completely missing the point.

    Think of it as a physical product. (I know that these analogies rarely go over well, but bear with me on this one.) Say, I want to make my own fruit juice and the only way I can do so is with a juicer. However, the only juicers available (for whatever reason) don’t suit my needs – either my budget or the juice that they produce. Fruit juice is not otherwise available and neither are suitable juicers, maybe because of price or they don’t ship to my country (for… I don’t know, juicer DRM, the manufacturers thinks my country sucks or something, etc). Now, you could argue that there is no right for me to be provided with the product I need.

    This leaves me with a few options. I could make my own juicer, borrow a juicer from someone who has one and is wiling to share, or decide to go without fruit juice and have water instead (since I don’t have a right to be entitled to fruit juice). The bottom line being that the manufacturers of juicers don’t get my money.

    We see the same parallels in shills that argue for greater IP protection. We have no right to be provided with the product in the way we want it, and their arguments revolve around comparing IP to physical product, and therefore something is stolen. Yet a lot of the arguments made for IP don’t make sense when applied to physical product; on the other hand, shills will always insist that it’s as bad as stealing something physical.

    Why do shills insist that the MAFIAA is entitled to my money, regardless of whether their product serves my needs (that they argue I am not entitled to)?

    • GeorgeDWarren

      I hope someday people will clone your dna and use that copies face as the poster child of anti-pedophile campaign.
      So then if someone kills you because of mistaken identity, i’m sure your family will be very happy that they cannot sue anyone for anything.

      • Anyone

        are we confusing making copies of data with identity theft?

        if you are able to go ahead and make copies of me for your private use
        just don’t use the copies for profit without my consent and everything is fine

        similarly you can download everything you want for your private use, and no harm is done
        once you start selling those downloads you might have a problem

      • Guest

        If you think intellectual property would protect me from the above, you’re an idiot. Why would anyone need to clone my DNA for a poster, of all things, when a photograph in a public place would suffice? Under those terms I would not have any claim for my photograph to be used however I do not like, because my picture was taken in a public place. If my face does turn up on such a poster it would be prosecuted under slander and defamation laws, not IP. Anyone who kills me would likewise be prosecuted under different laws. You’re not thinking that he should be fined $150,000 under statutory penalties, are you?

        Also, what the fuck is it with IP shills and using child pornography as their example? Do you really have no better excuses to pull? Or are you just mad that you don’t have the right to knock down doors of ordinary citizens and demand to scan their computers? You voted for the DMCA, live with it. Oh, and enjoy your SOPA/ACTA backlash.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          thats the thing, defamation law wont apply cause i am not defaming you, just a clone of you, that clone can sue me if he wishes, but not you!
          all i did was copy your dna sequence , which is just data, and generated a clone myself.
          its not identity theft, i didnt steal your identity, i didnt steal anything, you cant own anything thats not physical right? defamation laws dont apply to you, cause its not you!
          someday, when this is possible, there will be laws to prevent the cloning and some rights will be given to individuals to protect their dna sequence from being distributed, that is very similar to intellectual property laws.
          your dna sequence is nothing but data, however you own that data, and would not want others using it any which way they please, that can also apply to a movie you made, or a song you wrote. you will also have the right to sell your dna sequence data if you wish, but under your logic, anyone can sell your dna sequence legally.

        • Guest

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus
          So your point is, eventually at some point I may want control over some elements of my life and if we don’t agree to stronger IP law, we will completely lose control and our lives are screwed from that point on?

          Bollocks. I think most of us will agree that the problems surrounding child pornography should be stopped; however where people will disagree is how enforcement (or otherwise) might choose to deal with it. Anyone who goes out randomly killing people because of child pornography-based pranks will receive justice regardless of whether a person can sue him due to IP-based claims, much like how we might disagree with Anonymous and their complete disregard for the potential of collateral damage.

          You trying to paint this scenario as completely untouchable because of no IP protections is extremely disingenuous, in addition to being overexaggerated. You’re effectively saying that “Oh, the world is screwed in the next few centuries or so; now I want everybody to pay the RIAA/MPAA such that it won’t happen! I can’t prove what I’m saying and I’m using an extremely ridiculous/situational scenario, but that shouldn’t matter at all! It MIGHT happen so you might as well pay more money and support stronger IP now!”

          Thought processes like yours are the reason why we have ridiculous terms like copyright lasting life plus 70 years even though we all know there’s no way in hell a dead artist can continue profiting from his work up to 70 years after he kicks the bucket.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Yes because fraud and identity theft are similar to filesharing? Being unable to logically link the word “theft” to copyright infringement you are now grasping wildly for other straw men to put up as a basis for your arguments?

        If you allow your genetic code to be disseminated all over the internet then you quite literally have neither say nor control over what is done with it. The same applies if you were to distribute your account number and your bank PIN code. Although someone may become culpable for fraud as a result, neither bank, nor police, nor your insurance company will EVER see you reimbursed for the initial loss of confidentiality.

        If someone forcibly extracts your DNA and disseminates it – or pilfers your ATM card – then you have a crime – in the form of intrusion.

        Seriously, your comment fails on EVERY level.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          how do you NOT disseminate your dna, you shed it every day, everywhere you go!?!? I’m not allowing it to happen, it just happens, poor me i have no protection!

          i did not mention identity theft, someone else did, and that was a false argument which i already explained, just like when you buy a dvd, you can clone it right? and then share it with others? same thing with your dna code, correct?

        • Anyone

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus
          yes, you can clone DVDs and share it with others

          but when you for example modify the movie to paint it in a bad light (maybe add random dicks to scenes) that’s where you are committing fraud

          same with cloning me from my DNA
          go right ahead, I won’t stop you, but if you use my clone to paint me in a bad light (posterboy for childporn as in your example) that’s where you are committing fraud and I’d like you to stop

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus 

          Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it as seems to be usual just you completely lacking a basic grasp of law?

          If someone clones someone else, fine. Using said clone in order to represent the original is a case of fraud/identity theft.

          And this is why your analogy of using a clones face on a pedophile-poster IS INDEED a case of fraud/identity theft.

          The same way it would be fraud if someone copied a music file and then tried to sell it under the original’s brand name. The same way it’s probably ok for someone to write down your citizen’s identification number but not to use it in order to present yourself as the owner of that number.

          If someone picks up a few of your hair follicles and clones you for their personal use it’s an entirely different kettle of fish, and should certainly be legal, the same way you really don’t, nor should have, any control over what someone does with a photograph of you as long as it isn’t used for fraudulent or defamatory purposes.

          Do we really need to dumb it down any further?

          Honestly, if you start with a lousy analogy, trying to prop it up with irrelevant nonsense isn’t the answer…

      • Anon

        By the time cloning technology becomes advanced and widespread enough that people can freely take minute samples of a person’s DNA floating around and clone exact copies of said person within a reasonable amount of time such that they are virtually indistinguishable, you don’t think that people would already be aware that the person they’re looking at might be a clone instead of the real person? Why would people clone another person for the sake of linking said person to child pornography? There’s much more efficient ways to ruin someone’s life. If you already have cloning technology you’d might as well clone copies of people and have your own private army.

        There are no laws that can protect us from anger – mitigate the consequences, maybe, but not outright protect. I wish, though, there were laws protecting us from your levels of idiocy and hyperbole. You are describing a situation unlikely to be available within our lifetimes for the sake of greater IP enforcement – that you need to grasp at such fictional straws is testament of how poor your position is to begin with.

        • GeorgeDWarren

          What i’m trying to illustrate, that you cant seem to grasp, is ownership and protection of ‘things’ that are not physical, ie data. Many people here argue that since a digitized movie, song etc. are not physical things and thus are not afforded the same protection, ie you cannot steal something that is not physical.
          Your dna sequence is nothing but data, just as a movie you created, or a song you wrote and performed, but these things are in essence your property, and thus should be afforded similar protection against use without consent, and illegal distribution!
          Since you could not argue against my point, you resort to a weak attempt to discredit it altogether, which shows who the real idiot is.
          And i am not for greater IP protection, in fact i think it should be limited and modified, but i am totally against outright filesharing, which many here endorse.
          It’s a system that will not work and is intrinsically morally wrong.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus 

          Go back and read up on what many nobel prize-winning economists are saying. “Intellectual Property” is a phenomenon which is not about “Ownership”.

          It’s about party A restricting the property rights of party B. As such it is an exception to any market capitalism, not a pillar of support.

          And I see you still have no clue what the legal, moral, and dictionary definition of “steal” is.

        • Anon

          @GeorgeDWarren:disqus 
          I am arguing that your point is extremely poor. Cloning is a completely different can of worms and is, at present, not available to the masses. By the time it does become widespread enough for people to be aware of it, and that it can happen to anyone, you don’t think that people would be aware that your above scenario can occur and think rationally that the “pictured criminal” they come across might be a clone instead of the actual person?

          If someone chooses to act contrary to this knowledge, fine. We cross that bridge when we get there. You’re choosing to use a future event that may or may not happen and say, “This might happen! Therefore, let’s not trade data at all!” That is hyperbole. It’s like saying that the Sun will eventually blow up and let’s not do anything to improve or change the problems that we have now.

          For someone who claims not to support IP enforcement you’re doing a horrible job of portraying yourself as such.

  • Pingback: the pimpest internet news site – Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First

  • Pingback: Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First – TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews

  • Scary_Devil_Monastery


    Interestingly, the survey also showed at pirates and paying customers are often one and the same. In the 15-20 year-old group that bought or rented TV shows legally in the last year, 47% also downloaded or streamed illegal content.”

    Not exactly a surprise…independent studies have shown this pattern time and time again. Everyone with an interest in something will open their wallet for that interest.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/OVL7ZVGYF27VDINLMQTBSIFUYE Funhh

    THE STUDY DON’T LIE~!!!!

  • Kool

    Pirate here, the reason I download is because our economy and currency sucks

    third world countries do not have the privilege  most of you guys have.

  • Bija

    Too much content is made hard to get because of industry greed. They make us wait an extra 28 days to get a new movie from Netflix. Current episodes of HBO shows are only available if you subscribe to it. We subscribe with our cable, but sometimes I don’t want to pay the extra money to subscribe if there is only one show I want to watch.

  • crozbomb

    i sent mark cuban, producer at hd net an email saying that “inside mma” is not available to watch in my country and that he should put up a repeat on you tube, i said until he does it, i will download the torrents, he replied and seemed to give me personally the green light to torrent away

  • Guest

    When a legally purchased computer game comes with all kinds of restrictions that a pirated version of the same game doesn’t have, what kind of fool would buy a game legally?  When I buy a game, I should own my copy of the game and be able to use it as I wish.  I should be able to install it on as many computers as I want and play it on all of them without having to insert a CD.  I also shouldn’t be required to download a game via a software program where the owner of the program can remotely disable my game.  I won’t be buying any computer games until the game industry stops selling copies that are inferior to the pirated version.

    I’m not interested in anything the music industry has to offer at all.  I won’t even pirate  it.  I’d prefer to stream movies directly from a video site at no cost instead of having to download them, but I’m just not interested in paying money for what Hollywood has to offer and it is impossible to keep track of the TV schedule to know what movie comes on at what time.  I will pirate a TV show if my TV service is disrupted due to weather or if the show is simply not on at a convenient time for me or unavailable where I live.

    The content industry just needs to put everything online for free on demand and allow people to watch exactly what they want.  It is truly sad that there are people who spend their time uploading years of a particular TV show that isn’t even being sold by the “owner,” only to see all of it deleted because their Youtube account got 3 copyright strikes.  If the “rights holders” would just upload everything for free supported by ads, they’d actually make some money off of their content and stop piracy at the same time.

  • daas88

    I’m from Venezuela. If you want to legally buy a 60$ PC game, you’d have to pay in Bolivares (our coin) the equivalent to 140$. I’ll never pay that much for a game.
    Adjust the product’s prices according to our economies (not according to yours) and we might actually buy stuff.

  • http://twitter.com/ReViewMeMedia ReViewMeMedia

    I primarily download comics, because I can’t afford to buy them every month, but I buy the trade paperbacks what I download. I download some shows if I don’t want to buy them and they’re not available at my local library, which is where I borrow almost every movie I see. 

  • Pingback: Pirates Want To Go Legal But Convenience, Choice & Availability Come First – July 19, 2012 at 11:17AM | Lifestream

  • MorganHocking

    I pirate all of my tv shows.  If the option of tv shows that didn’t cost 35 dollars a season were available and there weren’t odd restrictions on them i wouldn’t pirate them.  If i could pay 50 bucks a month and watch itunes shows netflix style (all you can eat without ad’s) i’d stop pirating content.  I’d still be happy to and do pay for movies on itunes.

    as it stands.. i’m going to continue pirating tv till the end of time because the content producers don’t get that some of us just DON’T WANT TO WATCH 30 MINUTES OF ADS FOR EVERY HOUR OF TV and a season of a show isn’t worth 35 dollars.

    and no, i’m never going to get cable. it’s awful.

  • qitian

    tinyurl.com/cyk9xz2

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.