D
Deleted member 82943
Guest
Fuck Disney. This is a dick move.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I posted this previously:
Lol, at the people trying to justify piracy. If a paid service doesn't have what you want to watch then just don't watch it. It's like saying hee I don't habe enough money let me just go to a bank. Just don't do illegal shit. It is that simple.
No, being willing to steal things if you think you won't get caught causes piracy, and lots of other crimes.
I don't care what excuses pirates use. Piracy isn't people stealing food because they're starving.
Piracy is entitled-feeling asshats stealing just because they can, just like the people who smash-and-grab luxury goods during riots.
Succinct and to the point. However, some parents have blind (ignorant) faith in Disney as baby sitting channel of choice. I despised Disney offerings as a kid this would have been the 70's, though. There was a condescending insincerity that I couldn't get around. But for others with younger kids, this is an automatic buy.Fuck Disney. This is a dick move.
I like how you compare digital (non-tangible items) to physical goods. If I download a movie, there isn't one less copy available.
Yes, it's just a number. But if someone uses your credit card, then there will be less funds available on it, therefore you incur a loss. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp yet some still can't come to terms with it.So what's your credit card number? it's just digital right?
Yes, it's just a number. But if someone uses your credit card, then there will be less funds available on it, therefore you incur a loss. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp yet some still can't come to terms with it.
Copying digital media only causes "loss" if you assume that the person doing the copying would've without a doubt purchased it if they weren't able to copy it. And we know that to be a false equation, that holds no ground in reality.
This is not justifying piracy it's differentiating it from theft.
The entertainment industry could get rid of the majority of piracy if instead of treating the customer as the enemy, they'd respect them. And that means doing away with DRM, and geolocking. Because let's face it, the pirate groups can capture / download / rip the media regardless of DRM, so it only really affects their paying customers.
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.Theft is theft no matter how you want to try and justify it.
They were also including streaming. Your numbers are skewed.
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.
And the jury is still out on the fact that in all likelihood piracy actually drives sales by acting as a form of advertisement and raising awareness about good quality works. Of course no copyright troll company wants to investigate this, in case they find something they don't like. If anything the copyright trolls cause more damages to society than any amount of piracy could.
Lol, at the people trying to justify piracy. If a paid service doesn't have what you want to watch then just don't watch it. It's like saying hee I don't habe enough money let me just go to a bank. Just don't do illegal shit. It is that simple.
Remember once upon a time, the Disney channel was paid tv subscription. Guess they want to try again.
You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, piracy however is not theft. No matter how you try to blur the lines it still won't be the same. It is reproduction of a work without permission. Nothing less, nothing more. Even if it is sometimes referred to as stealing in common language, in terms of the damage it causes to society and legally it couldn't be more different.
And the jury is still out on the fact that in all likelihood piracy actually drives sales by acting as a form of advertisement and raising awareness about good quality works. Of course no copyright troll company wants to investigate this, in case they find something they don't like. If anything the copyright trolls cause more damages to society than any amount of piracy could.
By your own logic, iTunes is a "fringe" service.Sadly that link is blocked here at work...
I can use this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...rth-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes
Now that's a year old, but Netflix consumes 37% of all internet bandwidth in North America. iTunes is another 3%, 18% for YouTube, 3% for Hulu, and random others. So just add those big guys together and you get 61%. And that's a year ago, it's likely increased.
Bittorrent is ~3%.
So total piracy (because Bittorrent includes software, porn, music, games, etc AND movies/shows) is 20 times less popular...so basically "fringe"
Also from your link:Sadly that link is blocked here at work...
I can use this: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...rth-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes
Now that's a year old, but Netflix consumes 37% of all internet bandwidth in North America. iTunes is another 3%, 18% for YouTube, 3% for Hulu, and random others. So just add those big guys together and you get 61%. And that's a year ago, it's likely increased.
Bittorrent is ~3%.
So total piracy (because Bittorrent includes software, porn, music, games, etc AND movies/shows) is 20 times less popular...so basically "fringe"
By your own logic, iTunes is a "fringe" service.
Try this link:
https://betanews.com/2017/04/13/millennials-pirate-streams/
If you can't, the punchline is this :
"A survey conducted by LaunchLeap (and shared by TorrentFreak) shows that over half of millennials (53 percent) enjoy streaming media from illegal platforms. This may not sound great, but 70 percent also stream content from legal sources — clearly there is something of a crossover, and there are plenty of people indulging in a mix of legal and illegal content. Nearly half of millennials (47 percent) who subscribed to a legal service said they also use illegal streaming services."
So, a greater percentage of millennials download pirated content than voted in the last US presidential election.
Voting in an election is "fringe", apparently.
In addition, you simply cannot judge something like this based on a bandwidth survey. Streaming from Netflix is an activity that's data intensive for long periods of time, whereas downloading a movie (even in HD), only takes a few minutes. The movie-watching itself is done offline.
This is not even something that is debatable, frankly.
The FBI disagrees with you. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime/piracy-ip-theft
And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?I like how you compare digital (non-tangible items) to physical goods. If I download a movie, there isn't one less copy available.
The strawman is strong with this one...And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?
So you'd have nothing to complain about, under your logic, right? All they took was your intellectual property, just like pirates.
You're improperly interpreting the decision. Even the Wiki article makes it clear that the question the court decided was whether LPs including unlicensed bootleg Elvis Presley recordings were goods "'stolen, converted or taken by fraud', according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute" -- not whether the bootlegs were theft. As the SC wrote:The Supreme Court disagrees with the FBI.
Congratulations you just debunked yourself. You can't be sued for theft, since theft is handled by the criminal court, not a civil court. However you can be sued for using intellectual property without permission. That's piracy.Tell that to all the people who've been successfully sued for piracy.
Is that what passes for a reasoned counter-argument in your world?The strawman is strong with this one...
Simple but wrong. In America, you can be sued for anything. Google "sued for theft" for proof.You can't be sued for theft ... It seems a very simple concept to me, what don't you get about it?
You're improperly interpreting the decision. Even the Wiki article makes it clear that the question the court decided was whether LPs including unlicensed bootleg Elvis Presley recordings were goods "'stolen, converted or taken by fraud', according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute" -- not whether the bootlegs were theft. As the SC wrote:
"The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject good" (emphasis added)
N.B. leave the lawyering to lawyers, damicatz. Or if you are a lawyer, change careers, because it doesn't seem to me that you are a competent one.
Simple but wrong. In America, you can be sued for anything. Google "sued for theft" for proof.
Congratulations you just debunked yourself. You can't be sued for theft, since theft is handled by the criminal court, not a civil court. However you can be sued for using intellectual property without permission. That's piracy.
It seems a very simple concept to me, what don't you get about it?
None of which supports your claim that SCOTUS doesn't consider copyright infringement to be theft. It's just not "run-of-the-mill" theft.You left out a part :
Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
And if some asshat takes credit for work you did, and gets promoted while you get fired, no physical goods were stolen, right?
So you'd have nothing to complain about, under your logic, right? All they took was your intellectual property, just like pirates.
Heh kinda like steam for gaming. Many many people will only buy a game if it is on steams systems.But we the consumers do have the last word.
All we have to do is to stop subscribing to every single one of these damned services and stick with one or two and you will see how quickly we will get the content on only those services.
Sadly, people today are not willing to do any type of temporary sacrifice to send the message.