You win this round mister!!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Six Strikes Officially Begins On Monday
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
- Status
You win this round mister!!
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Even though I buy just about all the stuff that I like and use, I support software piracy. For various reasons, a person may pirate stuff they already have paid for.
Backwards compatibility comes to mind. Companies are trying to make money on every platform offering virtually the same product just because they can. It all boils down to this.
Well, excuse me if I am not willing to pay twice or more for stuff I already own. They are free to ask for this money that they're not going to get. But it's digital, you may point, and it doesn't wear off. Well, we wouldn't buy as many physical objects if they didn't wear off as much. Instead, we would be buying other stuff. How is that a bad thing?
Backwards compatibility comes to mind. Companies are trying to make money on every platform offering virtually the same product just because they can. It all boils down to this.
Well, excuse me if I am not willing to pay twice or more for stuff I already own. They are free to ask for this money that they're not going to get. But it's digital, you may point, and it doesn't wear off. Well, we wouldn't buy as many physical objects if they didn't wear off as much. Instead, we would be buying other stuff. How is that a bad thing?
AT&T lost the right to impose terms on anyone the second they got a state-sponsored monopoly, franchise rights and the ability to trespass on anyone's property for the purpose of running their profit-generating infrastructure.
Modred189
Can't Read the OP
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 16,321
The ability for a customer and service provider to enter into a contract would say otherwise.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
It isn't a free lunch for the developer, and it won't be for you. No such thing exists as a truly free lunch that costs nothing to anyone.
You want another platform support when you bought for one, you pay unless they decide to randomly give a freebie to you. You're no better than any other pirate by just stealing other versions of the product... that's like saying "I like my blue pants... but they want more money for the addition of a green pair of pants... WTF THAT'S BULL!!! I'M TAKING IT, I DESERVE IT!!!!!!!" .
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
You have zero authority, and are flat-out wrong anyway. Go live in the castles in the air, you sound like you love them...
I don't recall entering into a *consensual* contract with AT&T to let them use my land.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
You're not entitled to a response, bud, but I'll go look for whatever your post was.... I didn't even see it.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
Oh, someone already answered you, I just found it... that's why I glossed over it.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
It isn't a free lunch for the developer, and it won't be for you. No such thing exists as a truly free lunch that costs nothing to anyone.
But in reality it is as free lunch for the developer as it is for me. The product is already paid for. If the developer doesn't provide native support for certain platform and never promised such thing in the first place, that's fine. If they do, however, that's great and I'll take for free if I am interested enough. In such case I would be gracious enough and not expect any support whatsoever. After all, I didn't pay for it.
See? I just smacked your entire argument.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
Huh? No, you didn't. It's not paid for, they had to develop a version for that other platform. Stealing it and then claiming you won't ask for support is disngenious and outright pirating.But in reality it is as free lunch for the developer as it is for me. The product is already paid for. If the developer doesn't provide native support for certain platform and never promised such thing in the first place, that's fine. If they do, however, that's great and I'll take for free if I am interested enough. In such case I would be gracious enough and not expect any support whatsoever. After all, I didn't pay for it.
See? I just smacked your entire argument.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
I just smuggled a pair of my own socks into a room with floor that is not covered by my license. Call the criminal police.
No that wasn't a big issue at all at the time. That's why Sony never tried to hold Betamax or VHS manufacturers liable for copyright infringement, to the point of taking it to the US Supreme Court.
Sony OWNED Betamax.
You should make sure your facts are straight before throwing the
smilie around.Check out these cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_v._Grokster
People used to record songs off the radio all the time. The music industry did not like it, but was not too concerned because of quality loss. Now that music can be shared by people without a degradation in quality loss they care a lot more.
It is not that the quality loss affects the legality, it is that it affects the care level of the copyright holders. If all you were able to obtain was low quality music/videos, you would still have an incentive to go to a store and buy a good copy. But since you can get full quality copies, that incentive does not exist.
Modred189
Can't Read the OP
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 16,321
You sure about that? I suspect one of a few things are probably true:
1- You did when you signed up for their service and they ran some cables
2- You did when the developer of your subdivision entered into an easement with ATT. An easement that ran with the land such that you agreed to it when you bought your property.. whether you actually read your title or not.
Otherwise, I would expect that you sue them for damages.
And that's irrelevant to the conversation, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. We were talking about service contracts.
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
Really? In a news thread about such topic?
Technically he isn't comitting a crime, because to comit a crime it means that you broke something on the Criminal Law, and copyright infringement isn't a part of it, it is a Tort as someone else said at some point way far off...
It was usually the case that admitting to piracy was considered a faux pas. ie. Discussing piracy in general terms is one thing, openly admitting that you are pirating things and continuing to do so and discussing the methods for piracy was frowned upon. Whatever, I don't give a shit (if I did, I would have reported it rather than posting it publicly), I just find it funny that people are so happy to admit to piracy and so happy to admit they aren't going to stop
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
Considering everyone is talking about seeding torrents, they're not just downloading. However, there's no real reason it matters to differentiate for the purposes of my post there, you knew what was meant and it is commonly referred to as such on forums.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,670
It was usually the case that admitting to piracy was considered a faux pas. ie. Discussing piracy in general terms is one thing, openly admitting that you are pirating things and continuing to do so and discussing the methods for piracy was frowned upon. Whatever, I don't give a shit (if I did, I would have reported it rather than posting it publicly), I just find it funny that people are so happy to admit to piracy and so happy to admit they aren't going to stop
Yep, it is pretty hilarious how self-absorbed these rats are, scampering about when you talk circles around them.
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
It was usually the case that admitting to piracy was considered a faux pas. ie. Discussing piracy in general terms is one thing, openly admitting that you are pirating things and continuing to do so and discussing the methods for piracy was frowned upon. Whatever, I don't give a shit (if I did, I would have reported it rather than posting it publicly), I just find it funny that people are so happy to admit to piracy and so happy to admit they aren't going to stop
The truth is that while stealing is stealing , people have been trading music , movies and other content without the RIAA/MPAA knowing about it for decades. Only with the turn of the century and Napster becoming such a huge issue that extends to both sides did they start reacting poorly to the situation.
50 Million people were on Napster trading content back and forth. Instead of attempting to capitalize on that opportunity (which they are just barely starting to do now) they threw huge teams of lawyers at every single end of the issue. They sued every user regardless if they had a computer or even an IP they could link to them.
So over a decade later there is still a hole in the system that has yet to be plugged by offering content at a competitive price in an easy way. Neglect is the true problem with piracy. Content producers rightfully want control of their product but they also want tons of money. You simply , at least not in today's world , are able to control both factors evenly. Every business in the world trading any kind of commodity is searching for the "Holy Grail" of achieving the middle ground of control/money.
You either have situations where content producers like Hollywood want an easy ride for every blockbuster they attempt to make. They don't want to take risks anymore with big movie budgets going for a cool $250+ Million , they want a sure thing. So they roll up whatever "works" at the theater and just transform it over and over again into the same drivel with different window dressing. Content suffers from greed and users feel utterly dismayed by the result.
Do you realize that despite doing an incredibly well with his first Star Trek movie in terms of box office , JJ Abrams actually was contractually REQUIRED to convert Star Trek 2 into 3D because Hollywood is convinced it will boost box office sales and home video sales? Everyone I know hates 3D TV , they don't buy content that supports it and couldn't care less if it dies off tomorrow and is never spoken about again. Yet Hollywood has been pushing every single big budget movie into being converted into 3D if not filmed in 3D (which I'm sure net some bonuses for the production since hardly anyone is filming in 3D other than Cameron and a hand full of directors).
When users are faced with an industry that blames them for their record breaking $10.8 Billion dollar year in fiscal 2012 .. how exactly do they think they can ween users to break off piracy habits and into legal paid for content again?
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Funny how not only did you not "talk circles around" anyone, but you're the only one throwing around insults and acting mightier-than-thou.
- Status