Neuroscientists Discover Why Internet Pirates Don’t Feel Guilty

lcpiper said:
I will reply to this in order to reinforce my previous post.

When you pirate a movie, it's not the physical item that you are stealing, it's the copyright holder's right to control who can view and or copy their material. Your not stealing an item, you are stealing someone's rights to their own creations.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, once you make something and release it to the public, you lose some element of control. It is unavoidable. The only way to keep rigid control is to not ever make the product and release it. It still comes back to the general premise. If it can be played, it can be copied.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
I really don't think it's necessary to equate piracy to theft to explain why it should be wrong.

It's actually very simple, and embedded in the term "copyright" itself. Who has the RIGHT to make copies of this work? The author and/or the publisher. Sometimes, depending on the contract, even the author isn't allowed to sell copies of their work directly because they've sold the "copy rights" to a publisher in exchange for a percentage of the sales. It's not simply authorship that grants you the copyright, because it can be sold to a publisher or other entity that didn't author the book. Like how you can sell the mineral rights to a piece of property independently of that piece of property. Very complex set of rules, although there is a kind of logic to them.

A copy right is like a driver's license. You need to obtain the right to copy something legally, just like you need a license to drive legally. Incidentally, these copies are sometimes called "unlicensed copies," which might be more palatable to people who don't think it's equivalent to theft. Piracy is admittedly a loaded term that communicates a certain moral perspective on the matter.

Most people actually can see the moral problem with this in a scenario where people are SELLING unlicensed copies. Because, after all, that means they're directly competing with the publisher, without having had to buy the copy rights from the author or sign any kind of contract with them. They're making money through copying without having to make the same investment or play by the same rules as every other publisher, which strikes most people as unfair. Worse, in this case, it evokes images of unsuspecting consumers being misled by counterfeit merchandise. It's uncontroversial, really, why only the person who has the copy rights should be lawfully allowed to sell copies and profit from them.

The ambiguity comes in where the copies are being produced and distributed free of charge, to people who aren't being misled into thinking that these copies are authorized. Largely because the unauthorized distributor isn't really benefitting from what they're doing and may very well have altruistic motives, perhaps believing that even the poor should be able to experience this work of art. But the moment you add any price at all, even ten cents... you can immediately see the problem. The person is undercutting the publisher and not being required to play by the same rules. The unauthorized copy-maker doesn't have to deal with the same regulations, the same overhead, the same licensing agreements, operating costs, etc... as a traditional publisher. Yet they're benefitting from the work done by the publisher... the typesetting, the cropping and processing, the advertising, etc. The work would not be as well-known or reviewed if it weren't for the money being invested in advertisements, box art, and countless other little things you probably take for granted. All those costs are invested and recouped under the legally created assumption that no one else has the right to copy the work.

The flaw in the argument most people make in defense of copyright is that it's about defending the writer or artist. People forget about the publishers and advertisers, and don't really think about the investments they make. People invest in those companies, and those companies in turn invest in all kinds of things, under the assumption of copyright protection. That's where the real money is located. Imagine for a moment that we didn't have such a thing as a copyright. That anyone could make a copy of anything, and that no one was guaranteed an exclusive right to make copies. This would make things fair, because now publishers wouldn't have to pay for a copyright, but all quality control would go out the window. The publisher might very well have the right to change whatever they wanted to make the work sell better than other versions, they'd have to compete with other publishers to lower the price, and eventually everything would be distributed on the cheapest media possible, and you'd have to wade through mountains of terrible books and movies to find the good ones because there would be no time or money to vet... well, anything. You would more than likely see all the rejected book and movie ideas these people deal with on a daily basis. Publishers would be desperate to publish anything they could get their hands on in an attempt to make money before anyone else could copy the work. Everything would be produced and published on a budget, and the quality of artistic productions might go down.

So, the crime of unauthorized copying lies in the fact that you're invalidating all of those investments by violating the assumptions under which all that money was changing hands and the agreements that set the prices and allow the control of prices and thus of supply. Is insider trading wrong, even if you aren't stealing the stock? You're violating the rules and going against what most people would regard as fair play within the stock market because of an unfair advantage you have. In this case, again, the perpetrator making money makes the violation of the rules seem more morally repugnant. But the rules and agreements are still there even if no fraudulent gains are made.

Now, of course you could argue that copyright shouldn't exist, and you certainly have the right to question it. But so long as it exists and publishers have to play by different rules than pirates, then it's unfair to publishers who are obeying these laws and regulations that someone else should be allowed to undercut them by breaking those laws even if they don't profit from it directly. It's not simply about lost sales, although that's arguably part of it. Piracy being "free advertising" hurts advertising companies that might otherwise be hired, even if the person eventually buys the product. If people don't have to rely on 10-second soundbytes and will just experience the work before purchase, why spend as much on an advertising agency? It reduces the willingness of investors to invest in the publishing company, because they see that people can obtain the copies illegitimately and that the law aren't a deterrent. So even if every single person who downloaded a copy then purchased it, it still hurt the company in the eyes of investors and thus affected their bottom line.

Copyright is something that largely only makes sense within the context of a capitalist society with a complex, regulated market economy. It's a bit of a kludge because we don't have a perfect solution. But if you pull that thread out, you can start to see how it unravels a lot of things that were stitched together in ways you probably never contemplated.
Click to expand...

3765606-didnt_read_anim_dance_gif.gif
 
athenian200 said:
So... I'm supposed to be ashamed of myself because you don't like to read long posts? If you say so. LOL.
Click to expand...

I dunno.

tumblr_mj0zq1YMag1qky9cco1_500.jpg


That's what I'm getting from it. :) You're the smartest man alive! How do you plan to fix our plants?
 
For me personally I just don't give a fuck and can't, for the life of me, figure out why some people here care so much about what others do. Some people here are acting like piracy takes food off their families table or something. Get over it and calm down. Put all that wasted time and energy into something useful like protesting all these content providers that keep charging more and more while providing less and less. Maybe if the industry wasn't so greedy and backwards "piracy" wouldn't be such an issue.
 
NExUS1g said:
Between 1990 and 2001 the movie industry doubled its annual revenue, in 10 years. Since 2001 -- oddly enough when broadband become more readily available along with file sharing and the propagation of digital media -- it's only increased by 21%, in 15 years. I think that says a lot about how piracy is affecting the bottom line.
Click to expand...
It could be that for the past 15 years, most movies are crap. That could be effecting their bottom line. A movie like Deadpool took a lot of effort to get made. Effort in that they had to convince the studio that this movie will sell. Why?
 
Mut1ny said:
Maybe if the industry wasn't so greedy and backwards "piracy" wouldn't be such an issue.
Click to expand...

And we finally have the winning answer.

I would be willing to pay decent money to subscribe to something like Netflix, that actually had everything available (instead of less and less), and allowed me to cache movies/TV shows on my computer/tablet/phone for later viewing.
I don't care if the cached copies are encrypted, I just want to be able to watch them when I travel, or when I'm somewhere I don't have a decent internet connection. I wouldn't even care if they put a 30 day timeout on the cache. I just want to be able to queue up a couple movies so I can watch them un-interrupted. This would also help people who have slow internet connections, since you could pick your movies the day before and then watch them with out all the buffering delays.

Instead I have Sky-High cable bills and I'm forced to pay for 100+ channels I never watch due to the bundling forced on the cable companies by the Media industry.
 
NExUS1g said:
Yeah, so steal a candy bar, take a bite -- because that's all you want, you don't want to pay for the whole thing -- then put it back.

Or you don't like coconut so you steal a Mounds bar, because it's crap anyway so it's alright.
Click to expand...

So if I want to just watch one or two networks -- would anyone with common sense think it's worth it to pay $100-150 dollars a month for whatever cable package that has what you want? And that I should pay 100% of the price if I only consume perhaps 1/100th of the channels offered?

The few companies that control all of this are so used to their take it or leave it model. What they don't realize is if they wanted to combat piracy of their shows, offer options. There is untapped revenue in the form of per channel subscriptions, instead of innovating they choose the nuclear option of suing people saying that downloading 1 show costs them millions in lost money. Fuck that.

Just like everything else in life, it revolves around cold hard cash. It's easier for them to offer less options to people who are more than willing to pay for what they consume, and then use piracy as a scapegoat. We've seen this song and dance over and over, you can shut down 10 pirates, and 100 more pop up. Offer up reasonable options and suddenly you are making more money than you were before and gasp suddenly piracy drops.

When the game changes you have to adapt or get destroyed. Look at how the automotive industry has been trying to crush tesla because they want to sell cars differently. Big established monopolistic companies are so set in their ways they would rather block the sale of a car many people want, than figure out a way to compete and let the customer decide.
 
DukenukemX said:
It could be that for the past 15 years, most movies are crap. That could be effecting their bottom line. A movie like Deadpool took a lot of effort to get made. Effort in that they had to convince the studio that this movie will sell. Why?
Click to expand...

You think the movies in the 90's were a higher rate of awesome?
 
collegeboy69us said:
So if I want to just watch one or two networks -- would anyone with common sense think it's worth it to pay $100-150 dollars a month for whatever cable package that has what you want?
Click to expand...

No. Anyone with common sense wouldn't have it in that case, or simply accept the cost.

And that I should pay 100% of the price if I only consume perhaps 1/100th of the channels offered?
Click to expand...

You should only if you want to. It's entertainment, not air.

The few companies that control all of this are so used to their take it or leave it model. What they don't realize is if they wanted to combat piracy of their shows, offer options. There is untapped revenue in the form of per channel subscriptions, instead of innovating they choose the nuclear option of suing people saying that downloading 1 show costs them millions in lost money. Fuck that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's typically how it works in commerce. Take it or leave it.

Just like everything else in life, it revolves around cold hard cash. It's easier for them to offer less options to people who are more than willing to pay for what they consume, and then use piracy as a scapegoat. We've seen this song and dance over and over, you can shut down 10 pirates, and 100 more pop up. Offer up reasonable options and suddenly you are making more money than you were before and gasp suddenly piracy drops.
Click to expand...

This statement contradicts itself. You said it revolves around cold hard cash in a negative way, but then you say that if they followed your idea, they'd make more cash. It doesn't really follow.

When the game changes you have to adapt or get destroyed. Look at how the automotive industry has been trying to crush tesla because they want to sell cars differently. Big established monopolistic companies are so set in their ways they would rather block the sale of a car many people want, than figure out a way to compete and let the customer decide.
Click to expand...

Actually, the reason that the automotive industry is so up in arms about the Tesla thing is because current manufacturers aren't allowed to sell their own vehicles, and it must be done through a dealership that is owned by someone else. Tesla is attempting to circumvent that model by owning their own dealerships. I'd be upset too if a new kid came in and suddenly didn't have to follow the same anti-trust regulations that I did.
 
NExUS1g said:
No. Anyone with common sense wouldn't have it in that case, or simply accept the cost.



You should only if you want to. It's entertainment, not air.



Yeah, that's typically how it works in commerce. Take it or leave it.



This statement contradicts itself. You said it revolves around cold hard cash in a negative way, but then you say that if they followed your idea, they'd make more cash. It doesn't really follow.



Actually, the reason that the automotive industry is so up in arms about the Tesla thing is because current manufacturers aren't allowed to sell their own vehicles, and it must be done through a dealership that is owned by someone else. Tesla is attempting to circumvent that model by owning their own dealerships. I'd be upset too if a new kid came in and suddenly didn't have to follow the same anti-trust regulations that I did.
Click to expand...

Big established industries are averse to change -- when you are used to doing something X way for decades and making tens of billions of dollars from it, why change? Keep things the way they are and keep raking in the dough. Why expend effort to give the customer what they want, when you can keep doing the same thing and still make bank? They want to have their cake and eat it too, the take it or leave it model has to adapt especially in the digital world where "anything is possible". Consumers these days now have access to a global market and if someone doesn't want to sell me something at a reasonable price where it's win:win... then they will find alternative means. At the end of the day, you will never eradicate piracy, but you can control the scale at which it operates. You could make all movies/tv/games 1 cent, and people would still pirate it, you can't count these people as lost sales because they won't buy it under any circumstance.

The model that many of these businesses follow were great in the past - times change. Just like unions were a great and good force in the early 1900's times have changed and they have been slow to adapt, losing much of their usefulness or positive impact. I find it a bit ironic that the anti-trust legislation that was designed to keep at bay automotive monopoly is actually keeping another company from selling their product in an open and free manner.
 
collegeboy69us said:
Big established industries are averse to change -- when you are used to doing something X way for decades and making tens of billions of dollars from it, why change? Keep things the way they are and keep raking in the dough. Why expend effort to give the customer what they want, when you can keep doing the same thing and still make bank? They want to have their cake and eat it too, the take it or leave it model has to adapt especially in the digital world where "anything is possible". Consumers these days now have access to a global market and if someone doesn't want to sell me something at a reasonable price where it's win:win... then they will find alternative means. At the end of the day, you will never eradicate piracy, but you can control the scale at which it operates. You could make all movies/tv/games 1 cent, and people would still pirate it, you can't count these people as lost sales because they won't buy it under any circumstance.

The model that many of these businesses follow were great in the past - times change. Just like unions were a great and good force in the early 1900's times have changed and they have been slow to adapt, losing much of their usefulness or positive impact. I find it a bit ironic that the anti-trust legislation that was designed to keep at bay automotive monopoly is actually keeping another company from selling their product in an open and free manner.
Click to expand...

A lot of what you're saying is true. I don't see how it's justification for piracy, however. Like I said, this is entertainment, not air.
 
NExUS1g said:
Plagiarism is a copyright infringement.
Click to expand...


It is a form of copyright infringement but not all copyright infringement is plagiarism, and that is what you said pretty much.

Reading comprehension.

Edit:
Simple example, humans are animals yet not all animals are humans, so i shouldn't give the definition of Human when being asked what is an Animal.
 
So here's where I'm coming from and I haven't seen anyone state it this 'plainly' yet.
And yes, simplistic for a reason..

Most copyright holder's have their T&Cs written as such that you're not purchasing the product in question outright, but the right to consume said item under a specific set of scenarios. You agree, with no ability to negotiate otherwise, to these terms upon purchase.

So I have a copyright holder, who in most cases purchased the rights (on lien, with actual money to change hands only after a certain requirement is met) to sell someone else's work, which was then most likely sold (again, on lien with actual money to change hands only after a certain requirement is met and cost furthered ..I can't think of the word, but relating to advertisements) via a company that can distribute said work, selling me an abstract, non-tangible product that I don't legally own according to the immutable, man-made T&Cs that govern what amounts to an idea that, once viewed by me has zero repeatable worth and never again changes state.

Where's the stolen property when there's a chain of custody involving multiple parties, multiple copyright holders and everyone is 'purchasing the right' to either consume or distribute, but never actually legal own outright?

It's splitting hairs either way depending on where you come down on the definition of property, stealing and product.
But if I can only ever purchase 'viewing rights' that infers I cannot ever own the product, which to me, infers the product cannot be stolen to begin with.
 
Inacurate said:
It's splitting hairs either way depending on where you come down on the definition of property, stealing and product.
But if I can only ever purchase 'viewing rights' that infers I cannot ever own the product, which to me, infers the product cannot be stolen to begin with.
Click to expand...

Unauthorized access, maybe? Failure to adhere to terms and conditions? Breach of contract?

I think the way media does things, especially digital media, made the laws and definitions a bit iffy. Since you're licensing the material for your consumption. You don't own anything if you buy legit, you can't steal anything, either. You just get the right to view if you follow their rules.

The consumer is grasped by the testicles by the license holder. They make the rules. The consumer is pushing back a little and they don't like it. IMO, they need to adjust their sales model a bit.
 
Snowdog said:
This stuff reminds me of the "Case of the stolen Smell".

Where a wealthy shopkeeper was enraged when he discovered a poor student was enjoying the smell of his cooking while eating his poor rice, and charged him with theft.
Click to expand...

Pirates and pirate apologists just love to play the victim card, eh? That's the one consistent thing I've seen here.
 
Dv8ted21 said:
Be that as it may, once you make something and release it to the public, you lose some element of control. It is unavoidable. The only way to keep rigid control is to not ever make the product and release it. It still comes back to the general premise. If it can be played, it can be copied.
Click to expand...


If you live, you can be killed, should we accept murder at the mass level with no attempt at control?
 
NExUS1g said:
Pirates and pirate apologists just love to play the victim card, eh? That's the one consistent thing I've seen here.
Click to expand...

I'd rather be a Pirate, than a RIAA/MPAA apologist.

What victim card? This is an ancient story, that highlights the absurdity of screaming theft over intangible items.
 
Snowdog said:
I'd rather be a Pirate, than a RIAA/MPAA apologist.

What victim card? This is an ancient story, that highlights the absurdity of screaming theft over intangible items.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a story of the poor little guy getting screwed over by the big rich guy. You using it here is playing the victim card.

I'm not an RIAA/MPAA apologist. I personally think it's morally reprehensible that someone would disrespect someone else's time and effort in such a way.
 
NExUS1g said:
Yeah, a story of the poor little guy getting screwed over by the big rich guy. You using it here is playing the victim card.

I'm not an RIAA/MPAA apologist. I personally think it's morally reprehensible that someone would disrespect someone else's time and effort in such a way.
Click to expand...

All you're doing now is making a moral argument. Morals and ethics can't be used to make your case because they're subjective.

If you could make a case for it actually hurting the industry such as a financial loss then you'd have a case but that's not going to happen. Every independent study has shown that the effect is barely distinguishable from 0. The music, movie, video game, and software industries are making money hand over fist and are larger than they've ever been despite the rise of p2p file sharing, etc. The fact remains that most of the people who do it and don't buy wouldn't have bought it anyway. There's also the fact that many people buy after using p2p or some other method to obtain an unauthorized copy.
 
NExUS1g said:
Yeah, a story of the poor little guy getting screwed over by the big rich guy. You using it here is playing the victim card.

I'm not an RIAA/MPAA apologist. I personally think it's morally reprehensible that someone would disrespect someone else's time and effort in such a way.
Click to expand...

That is a facet of the argument that is damned hard to dodge.
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
All you're doing now is making a moral argument. Morals and ethics can't be used to make your case because they're subjective.

If you could make a case for it actually hurting the industry such as a financial loss then you'd have a case but that's not going to happen. Every independent study has shown that the effect is barely distinguishable from 0. The music, movie, video game, and software industries are making money hand over fist and are larger than they've ever been despite the rise of p2p file sharing, etc. The fact remains that most of the people who do it and don't buy wouldn't have bought it anyway. There's also the fact that many people buy after using p2p or some other method to obtain an unauthorized copy.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that all legislation is based on moral and ethical arguments. Your following claims are wrong or unproven.
 
NExUS1g said:
Pretty sure that all legislation is based on moral and ethical arguments.
Click to expand...

You are wrong to make such a broad statement because it isn't true.

Your following claims are wrong or unproven.

No, they aren't. What part of "independent research studies" do you not understand? You can find this information for yourself by simply using Google. If you have done your own research studies that prove these findings to be false then give us a link. It would clear up a huge misunderstanding.
 
Lord Nassirbannipal said:
You are wrong to make such a broad statement because it isn't true.

Your following claims are wrong or unproven.

No, they aren't. What part of "independent research studies" do you not understand? You can find this information for yourself by simply using Google. If you have done your own research studies that prove these findings to be false then give us a link. It would clear up a huge misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Independent research studies which you did not cite. The one study cited here by someone on your side shows the opposite of what you claim.

How do you figure that laws do not have a basis in morals and ethics?
 
NExUS1g said:
Independent research studies which you did not cite. The one study cited here by someone on your side shows the opposite of what you claim.

How do you figure that laws do not have a basis in morals and ethics?
Click to expand...

I don't need to cite something that's common knowledge by everyone but you and one other person. This is just an excuse because you can't back what you're saying. A simple Google search would confirm it. My statement that these markets have continued to grow is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Video games have been widely available via P2P for a long time and yet the market to day is bigger than it's ever been. You can see this via game sales and by the fact that the worst-selling home systems of last generation sold more than the SNES and Sega Genesis combined.

How do you figure that laws do not have a basis in morals and ethics?

Laws are made based on what's best for society depending on the effect that they will have on society in the long run. They aren't based on morals and ethics because, as I stated, they are subjective. When making laws, we use evidence which can be objectively observed, tested, and measured. This doesn't apply to morals and ethics.
 
NExUS1g said:
The one study cited here by someone on your side shows the opposite of what you claim.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the one posted by SnowDog in post #75 then you're wrong because it doesn't show the opposite. Actually, the one that you cited is industry-funded research which is biased
 
NExUS1g said:
Yeah, a story of the poor little guy getting screwed over by the big rich guy. You using it here is playing the victim card.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant how wealthy anyone in the story is. The point how ridiculous it is to cry theft over intangible goods. Interesting that centuries ago, before we had copyright/RIAA/Internet, that we have a story shoot down this kind of sillyness.

I'm not an RIAA/MPAA apologist.
Click to expand...

Your words paint a different story.

I personally think it's morally reprehensible that someone would disrespect someone else's time and effort in such a way.
Click to expand...

You mean like the student disrespecting the shopkeeper by stealing the smell of cooking food?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top