Bit Torrent SHUT DOWN !?!?!?!?!

[Animal]

Originally posted by Rataxes: Animal, if you honestly cannot see a difference between making a copy of intellectual property and stealing personal possessions then I'm not going to bother to try and make you see one. Suffice to say that if a group of thugs broke into my house and stole everything of value that I owned then that would've dealt a serious blow to my life and the lives of everyone who lived there. Can you give me even one example of how music sharing has evidently dealt a serious blow to someones life?

So what you are saying is that a crime is only a crime if it has a serious effect on someone's life? Sorry, I don't see it that way.

The fact that the people associated with the music, software or movie are being deprived of profits should be enough of a reason by itself, regardless of the criminal aspect of such behaviour.

Just because some of these people may be wealthy, doesn't lessen the impact and even though the artists still see nothing wrong with it, making illegal copies of music, software or movies is illegal. By downloading such copies, the user is comitting a crime. It doesn't matter whether it's burglary or downloading illegal music, a crime is a crime.

[RoSs_bg2_rox]

While I don't agree with Rataxes statement about a crime only being a crime if it has a serious affect on people's lives, I do have something to input. Everytime someone is punched/kicked/beaten in anyway by someone else, even by a mate, that is a crime-assault. Everytime under 16's (or varying ages across the globe) have sex, that is a crime. Everytime a copyrighted map on a game is taken over by someone else replacing their name on the front, that is a crime. Everytime you crack software so that you can use it again on another computer, that is a crime.

What I'm trying to say is, you may call it a crime, but it isn't a substantial crime, and it is a crime which many people don't think twice about, they don't even realise it is a crime. And it isn't actually that series.

[Animal]

Originally posted by RoSs_bg2_rox: While I don't agree with Rataxes statement about a crime only being a crime if it has a serious affect on people's lives, I do have something to input. Everytime someone is punched/kicked/beaten in anyway by someone else, even by a mate, that is a crime-assault. Everytime under 16's (or varying ages across the globe) have sex, that is a crime. Everytime a copyrighted map on a game is taken over by someone else replacing their name on the front, that is a crime. Everytime you crack software so that you can use it again on another computer, that is a crime. What I'm trying to say is, you may call it a crime, but it isn't a substantial crime, and it is a crime which many people don't think twice about, they don't even realise it is a crime. And it isn't actually that series.

Agreed, but until such times as laws are changed, they're still crimes.

I'm one of the few who believe that downloading illegal material is a serious crime, and should be punished in an equally serious manner.

[Q'alooaith]

Originally posted by Animal: I think all file sharing programs should be outlawed.

That's a rather sweeping statment..

let's look at it like this, a program is shipped with a minor flaw, you put a patch out the "normal" way and your spending money to correct the misstake, every user would have to download that patch to fix the error..

What if the patch is larger, that's more bandwidth per user, maybe the company can't afford to send the file to everyone.. Filesharing takes the load off them, means that everyone is able to get what they need to be up and running with less bondwidth cost issues..


Without bittorrent Neocron 2 might never have been released, and the world would be an empty and hollow place..

Well they'd probably have used somthing else but anyway the point stands.


There are many legal uses for file sharing programs, without napster and others we'd probably not see so much music up for playing over the internet legaly, you still have to pay but it's nothing near the cost of buying a CD..

It'd be much more in the music and movie industrys interest to take advantage of the fact people want to download and watch movies on their computers, few tweaks and they could be sending out encyrpted files, then charge for unlock codes to be sent out via the internet, pay per view style..

Far nicer than saying "no bad bad bad, go away" they can't stop change, only embrace it or be overun.

[Rataxes]

Originally posted by Animal: So what you are saying is that a crime is only a crime if it has a serious effect on someone's life?

What? No.

What you did was equate a bunch of burglars raiding ones house for all it's worth with making a copy of a piece of intellectual property that at most has a market value of a few dollars and is equivalent to a few cents of income for the artist responsible for the song. Now you've stepped down to just saying they're both crimes. They both undeniably are, since there's a very clear definition of what a crime is. I was just stating that while they're both crimes as defined by the law, they are not comparable in ANY other way.

The fact that the people associated with the music, software or movie are being deprived of profits should be enough of a reason by itself,

How you can you be so sure that illegal piracy is in fact hurting the incomes of recording artists? Other than a slight decrease in total revenue of music products (we're talking single digit percentages here) that isn't even consistent for the entire world (revenues increased in certain countries past year) over the past few years that could've been caused by numerous other factors (less interest in music, more competition from other branches of media products, recession, natural fluctuation of sales etc) I can't say I see any signs that online music sharing is about to cripple the music industry, and certainly no evidence that it has stopped the career of some indie band dead in it's tracks. I have on the other hand dozens of times witnessed first hand how online music sharing helped spread the word of new and upcoming artists and generated interest in those artists, something that can only be beneficial for them.

As for your last point, I'm not here to argue whether it's a crime or not. What I'm interested in is how music sharing actually affects the music industry and the recording artists.

[ 12-22-2004, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]

[Animal]

From the RIAA:

June 25, 2003

Some Facts About Music Piracy


In the past three years, unit shipments of recorded music have fallen by 26 percent from 1.16 billion units in 1999 to 860 million units in 2002 in the United States (based on units shipped).

In terms of sales, revenues are down 14 percent, from $14.6 billion in 1999 to $12.6 billion last year (based on U.S. dollar value of shipments).

The music industry worldwide has gone from a $39 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002 (based on U.S. dollar value of shipments).

Computer users illegally download more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files (mostly songs) every month. At any given moment, more than five million users are online offering an estimated one billion files for copying through various peer-to-peer networks.

As of July 2002, Kazaa boasted 100 million registered users. By May 2003, Kazaa had become the world’s most downloaded software, with 230.3 million downloads. In other words, Kazaa has been adding new users at a rate of 13 million a month, or 270 new members a minute.

Hit recordings have been impacted most dramatically. In 2000, the ten top-selling albums in the United States sold a total of 60 million units. In 2001, that number dropped to 40 million. Last year, it totaled just 34 million.

North American sales of blank CDs shot up by more than 30 percent in 2002 --outstripping sales of music CDs by a more than 2-to-1 margin. At the same time, sales of MP3 players jumped 56 percent. (International Recording Media Association)

About 25 percent of the total number of files available on unauthorized peer-to-peer services are hosted outside the United States. This is a particular problem in countries where broadband penetration is growing (especially Canada, Germany, UK, Sweden, Netherlands).

According to a November 2002 survey by Peter D. Hart Research, by a 2-to-1 margin, most consumers who say they are downloading more music report that they’re purchasing less.
The same survey found that the main reason teenagers aren’t buying more music is that they get a lot of what they want for free by downloading or copying it. Among 12- to 18-year-olds, 35 percent will download a new song they like vs. just 10 percent who will buy it. Among 19- to 24-year-olds, 32 percent download vs. 9 percent who will buy.

Releasing an album with major distribution costs a record label at least $1 million; of the thousands of new titles released each year by major labels, fewer than 10 percent are profitable.

[Jaradu]

Erm... suprnova.org closing down isn't all bad... They do have mirrors you know. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And the whole moral issue - I used to be a ravaging machine when it came to downloading stuff. If I wanted it, I'd download it. Not anymore. I now buy all the games I want. If I want music, I download it, but I also buy it if I like it. I consider this a fair balance.

[Sigmar]

I buy music albums I like to support my favourite singers/bands.

Download all the music you want but basically if you want your favourite mucisians to keep putting out records, then buy their stuff, pay for it to show that you appreciate it!

"Someother dumbass will pay for it, so why can't I just download it?" Eventually too many people are going to start thinking like that and the industry is going to go down the toilet is why.

"The singers are loaded anyway, they don't need the money, I do." Bullplop, these individuals EARN their money. I'm not going to equate downloading music to being a crime.

I'm going to say it's bloody rude, and selfish on the part of the person downloading the music (talking about people who download music with no intention of buying the music later on).

Whether there is no evidence about "file-sharing" affecting the music industry and whatever is not the point. The point is that many people are simply "taking money out of another person's pocket", typically for no real justifiable reason, and personally I think that is wrong.

[theGrimm]

Ah, yes. The great debate.

Obviously, if an artist gives permission for the downloading of his music (and the producer, too, who may legally have some ownership), then by all means download.

But it's ETHICALLY wrong to take something that belongs to someone else without their permission, regardless of whether it's the original or a copy. You don't read your friends diary without permission, do you? Regardless of whether you copy it or take the actual diary.

Part of the problem lies with copyrights, of course, and apparently there is a new kind of copyright (it has a fancy name I can't remember) out that ALLOWS free downloads, etc.

In South Africa, one such compilation CD has been released...the songs on there may be copied, shared and even changed with PERMISSION from the creators, provided proper credit is given.

So yes, times are a changing.

I don't believe making copies without permission from the author for any reason is ethical. Although, I was tempted with Half Life 2, having no Internet Access at home. Do you think it would have been wrong to have installed a modified version, provided I paid for the orginal, too?

[Sigmar]

Originally posted by theGrimm: But it's ETHICALLY wrong to take something that belongs to someone else without their permission, regardless of whether it's the original or a copy. You don't read your friends diary without permission, do you? Regardless of whether you copy it or take the actual diary.

Bingo.

If they give permission sure, do it to your hearts content, but if not...well, look at theGrimm's post!