Dotcom raid illegal

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And it is equally true, then, that

• It's the people who borrow from the library, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who borrow from friends, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who buy from secondhand stores, when they otherwise would have bought new, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

You're arguing the straw man usually advanced by Elfwreck which is that because people borrow books, and buy used books, then ... what exactly? Authors should be somehow be satisfied with working for little or nothing , or somehow substitute getting "reader appreciation" and "exposure" for getting paid?
I must confess I've never quite grasped the argument, whoever advances it.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If your mind equates a neccesity like medicine with luxuries like art and sports, I can see how you were able to arrive at the position you are flailing so wildly to defend.

Thus you arrive at your contention that works by people working a regular job are not art (however well recieved and enduring in popularity) because the artist wasn't "dedicated."

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. My point is not that people working a regular job can't produce good art. Rather, its because true artists want to dedicate themselves to working full time at their art-which means they need to get paid for their art.

I'm willing to bet that just about every self pubber around these parts is dying for the day when they are making enough money from their "sideline" to quit working their "day job" ( or at least cut back ) and focus on their art. I wouldn't expect anything less.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

All three are needed. We agree.

A fourth is also needed: a way to get paid.
An artist who isn't getting paid will be doing work where he does get paid.

Them's the breaks. If an artist can't make a go of it economically, well, maybe that self-proclaimed artist doesn't quite have the talent, dedication, and effort necessary. Maybe that self-proclaimed artist needs a reality check and should not look for excuses, should not blame some file-sharing site or torrent for lost income.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

You're arguing the straw man usually advanced by Elfwreck which is that because people borrow books, and buy used books, then ... what exactly? Authors should be somehow be satisfied with working for little or nothing , or somehow substitute getting "reader appreciation" and "exposure" for getting paid?
I must confess I've never quite grasped the argument, whoever advances it.

No, I'm not arguing anything; I'm pointing out that HarryT's claim about how evil pirates are depriving an author of livelihood can be equally applied to anyone who borrows a book or buys secondhand. There are legitimate arguments against unpaid downloads, but that simply isn't one of them.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Them's the breaks. If an artist can't make a go of it economically, well, maybe that self-proclaimed artist doesn't quite have the talent, dedication, and effort necessary. Maybe that self-proclaimed artist needs a reality check and should not look for excuses, should not blame some file-sharing site or torrent for lost income.

Actually, its not the failed artists who are featured at file sharing sites: it's the successful artists.
The pirates don't usually bother putting up the works of Johnny Nobody on their sites: its the Stephen Kings and James Pattersons they want , so as to draw the eyeballs to the ads they sell. Putting bestsellers on their sites is key to their business model.

No, I'm not arguing anything; I'm pointing out that HarryT's claim about how evil pirates are depriving an author of livelihood can be equally applied to anyone who borrows a book or buys secondhand. There are legitimate arguments against unpaid downloads, but that simply isn't one of them.

I'll let HarryT speak for himself, but it seems logical to me that offering his work for free at pirate sites must cost him "some sales", even if he can't determine exactly how much.

1. Just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, its not the failed artists who are featured at file sharing sites: it's the successful artists.
The pirates don't usually bother putting up the works of Johnny Nobody on their sites: its the Stephen Kings and James Pattersons they want , so as to draw the eyeballs to the ads they sell. Putting bestsellers on their sites is key to their business model.

I'd be interested to hear what pirate sites you're familiar with, given that the picture you paint is wildly at odds with what I've seen.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh, how fun! I've played this game:

1. Assumption of harm only harms your assumption.
2. Evidently presumption sometimes presumes to be evidence.
3. If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws.
(Yeah.. I know that last one technically breaks the pattern, but it's hard to deny its cleverness)

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

I'd be interested to hear what pirate sites you're familiar with, given that the picture you paint is wildly at odds with what I've seen.

Then maybe you need to get out more. Check out the screen grabs at The Ethical Fan:

This is a screen shot of the pirate website Kick Ass Torrents that shows a search for the latest Lucasfilm movie, Red Tails. Note that on the date of this posting, May 2, the legal product will not be released until May 22 in the US. On the right hand side of the page, you can see advertising from ISP AT&T. These are targeted ads that are designed to show up on web sites used by frequent downloaders of illegal content. If pirates were unable to sell advertising on these sites, they would not have the resources to operate these sites. Rather than these ISPs being part of the solution, it appears to us that they are actually helping to drive the phenomenon by buying targeted advertising in these sites.
In our opinion, AT&T appears to be sponsoring the access to Lucasfilm product prior to the products’ release date

LINK


There's a lot more there and elsewhere.

David Lowery at the Trichordist minces no words:

Virtually all of these Artist Exploitation sites such as The Pirate Bay, Demonoid, Iso Hunt and others are operating for profit. Again, this is not about fans sharing, this is about illegally operating businesses making millions (and more likely Billions collectively) of dollars a year from the exploitation of artists work and not sharing any of the revenue with artists.

LINK

Those millions and billions are coming from ad revenues. Do you think those pirate site servers operate for free ? Well, think again.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, how fun! I've played this game:

1. Assumption of harm only harms your assumption.
2. Evidently presumption sometimes presumes to be evidence.
3. If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws.
(Yeah.. I know that last one technically breaks the pattern, but it's hard to deny its cleverness)

Another good one is " If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" .

Anywho AOEINEOA is a pithy rejoinder to what high falutin logicians call "the argument from ignorance" . Mr. Carl Sagan:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[

, THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD

Here, its difficult to identify or quantify Harry T's losses from piracy , but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and may even be substantial. I think he has a right to take umbrage, and frankly even to call them " thieving bastards" .

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, how fun! I've played this game:

1. Assumption of harm only harms your assumption.
2. Evidently presumption sometimes presumes to be evidence.
3. If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws.
(Yeah.. I know that last one technically breaks the pattern, but it's hard to deny its cleverness)

Unfortunately, number 3 has a small problem. In-laws are in-laws only because marriage is legal.

On the bright side, if marriage were outlawed you could be a dastardly desperado by getting hitched and never have a mother-in-law.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Then maybe you need to get out more.

I rather think that applies to yourself. I use torrent sites on a regular basis (for reasons detailed in various other threads) and have done for as long as torrents have been around. Your statement that: "Actually, its not the failed artists who are featured at file sharing sites: it's the successful artists" is about as wrong as it could be. Pretty much anything and everything can be found with much the same ease. There are indies, there's old and obscure stuff which can't be found anywhere else and yes, there are of course the big hitters.

Check out the screen grabs at The Ethical Fan:

Why? Do you imagine that this Ethical Fan, about whom I know nothing, somehow lends your assertions more credence?

There's a lot more there and elsewhere.

And there's at least an equal amount to be found which disputes and contradicts whatever is said in your preferred links.

David Lowery at the Trichordist minces no words:

Yeah, well, I've no idea who he is either.

Those millions and billions are coming from ad revenues. Do you think those pirate site servers operate for free ? Well, think again.

Well, that shows how much you know. There are scores, if not hundreds of torrent sites out there without a single ad on them and which operate without charging users or members a penny. Instead they rely solely on voluntary donations from users. Since many of them have operated for years it must work fairly well. I'm sure there are as many, or more, who do advertise and/or charge, but I've personally never actually visited one.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Unfortunately, number 3 has a small problem. In-laws are in-laws only because marriage is legal.

On the bright side, if marriage were outlawed you could be a dastardly desperado by getting hitched and never have a mother-in-law.

inLAWS ... legality... duh. I completely missed that.

Ah well... that's what I get for thinking clever wording lends any extra credibility to the words.

[stonetools]

Why? Do you imagine that this Ethical Fan, about whom I know nothing, somehow lends your assertions more credence?


Quote:

Actually I was relying on the facts he referred to . He has presented evidence of ads from major corporations in support of pirate sites. Do you deny that major pirate sites are financed by ads from corporations? If so, present evidence refuting that. I'm afraid your personal say so isn't good enough,because hey, I don't know who you are.

You don't know who David Lowery is? Then let Wikipedia enlighten you:

LINK

David Lowery (born September 10, 1960) is an American guitarist, vocalist and songwriter; he is the founder of alternative rock band Camper Van Beethoven and co-founder of the more traditional rock band Cracker. Lowery released his first solo record, The Palace Guards, on February 2, 2011, via the 429 Records label.
Lowery is a trained mathematician who has worked as a "quant" (a derivatives trader and financial analyst) and has started a large number of music-related businesses, including a studio, a record company and a publishing company.[1] Lowery's extensive experience in business led to his appointment as a lecturer in the University of Georgia's music business program. [2]

Frankly he sounds a hell of lot more credible than someone on the Internet who uses torrents, what would him being an actual musician, businessman, lecturer and independent music producer - you know, one of the guys who the torrenters rip off .

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Cosign. The idea that the two options are either a free and open Internet or totalitarian regimentation is a false dichotomy. There is another option-that of ordered liberty and the rule of law. That's been the way of Western civilization since invention of the US constitution ( which had IP rights baked right in-the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the IP rights clause).

There is also this from the UN Declaration of Rights :



From the POV of the UN, pirates aren't the harmless pests or "freedom fighters" as many on this forum believe: rather, they are human rights violators pure and simple.

Extending the rule of law to the Internet is going to be next step in the evolution of the Internet. Its inevitable and even better than that, its the right thing to do. We don't know how many artists have been afraid to put their work on the Internet because they're afraid it will be ripped off, but the number must surely be more than zero.

Whoa ..... Western Civilisation didn't begin with the US Constitution!

Sacre bleu!!!!

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And it is equally true, then, that

• It's the people who borrow from the library, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who borrow from friends, when they otherwise would have bought, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.
  
• It's the people who buy from secondhand stores, when they otherwise would have bought new, who are responsible for depriving authors of their livelihood.

Originally Posted by stonetools

You're arguing the straw man usually advanced by Elfwreck which is that because people borrow books, and buy used books, then ... what exactly? Authors should be somehow be satisfied with working for little or nothing , or somehow substitute getting "reader appreciation" and "exposure" for getting paid?
I must confess I've never quite grasped the argument, whoever advances it.

It's quite legal in my country to do all the things that Cat Lady has articulated, borrow from the library (free service), borrow from friends and buy and sell secondhand books.

I don't find it difficult to grasp.