32% Of All U.S. Adults Watch Pirated Content

Rysen said:
Did you even read my stuff? I have already told you. If you don't want to read my stuff don't comment about it............................
Click to expand...


LOL, so this guy's idea of a discussion is, that he wants to interject with his point of view, and not have anyone disagree with him?

Dude, next time you have something to say, and you don't want anyone to talk back, get up from your computer and go to the bathroom ......... and talk to your mirror for Christ's sakes.
 
illram said:
I get all my content legally but I don't give a shit if others don't. What does annoy me are the fake excuses some people make, when really they just want their shit for free.
Click to expand...

I've always believed that the biggest chunk of piraters don't believe *ANY* content is worth paying for. They've always pirated because the idea of paying for content is tantamount to craziness. It doesn't speak to their moral code, financial circumstances or the ability to pay; It's just the way they're wired. And they see anyone that does pay as chumps of the first order.
The 32% is nuts. I'd be surprised if it's actually 10%. If it's easier to buy than pirate, people will always buy.
 
lcpiper said:
LOL, so this guy's idea of a discussion is, that he wants to interject with his point of view, and not have anyone disagree with him?

Dude, next time you have something to say, and you don't want anyone to talk back, get up from your computer and go to the bathroom ......... and talk to your mirror for Christ's sakes.
Click to expand...
I ask if you had read my sutff and your response is that I don't want anyone to disagree with me? You cannot be serious. So you believe it is okay to ask someone a question about something he already answered instead of reading it yourself. I will also take the liberty just like you to tell you that if you want to argue with someone you should read his statement rather than tell him he doesn't want to read different opinions. Look its simple if I didn't care about your opinion I would not have answered in the first place. The reason I answered and took the time to reply is because it mattered to me, but since you don't seem to care about the content of the discussion and rather are focused on your own believes of how I should reply to you by making cheesy suggestions I'll move on to productive discussion with someone who cares to make an actual argument.

This is why these argument don't progress. People don't care about discussing the content, the facts, but rather about emotional and personal views of other's behaviors.
 
Rysen said:
I ask if you had read my sutff and your response is that I don't want anyone to disagree with me? You cannot be serious. So you believe it is okay to ask someone a question about something he already answered instead of reading it yourself. I will also take the liberty just like you to tell you that if you want to argue with someone you should read his statement rather than tell him he doesn't want to read different opinions. Look its simple if I didn't care about your opinion I would not have answered in the first place. The reason I answered and took the time to reply is because it mattered to me, but since you don't seem to care about the content of the discussion and rather are focused on your own believes of how I should reply to you by making cheesy suggestions I'll move on to productive discussion with someone who cares to make an actual argument.
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything you said because I never got passed what I quoted and what I quoted is what I commented on.

Do you think that if I go back and catch up with your comments that It will show what I quoted in a different light?

Did I misunderstand what I quoted is my question?
 
lcpiper said:
I didn't read anything you said because I never got passed what I quoted and what I quoted is what I commented on.

Do you think that if I go back and catch up with your comments that It will show what I quoted in a different light?

Did I misunderstand what I quoted is my question?
Click to expand...
Great, well the reply to your question was in the rest of the paragraph. I assumed you read it, so that settles that.
 
Rysen said:
Great, well the reply to your question was in the rest of the paragraph. I assumed you read it, so that settles that.
Click to expand...


You know what they say about assumptions, it's makes an ASS out of You and Me.

You are wrong to make such an assumption. I quoted what I quoted and my comment is directed at hat I quoted.

I left it all open, I asked if I misunderstood you. So Did I?
 
lcpiper said:
You know what they say about assumptions, it's makes an ASS out of You and Me.
Click to expand...
Oh shit I just realized my original reply was not to you it is a reply to someone else. Even I thought I had reply to your comment but its not your comment.

EDIT: I was confused. Never mind you only replied to my first sentence of my reply and I assumed you were the guy I had replied to. My mistake. Anyways the reason I said that first sentence was because the content of the person I replied to showed that he had not read my entire comment as I had included in the original comment what he later asked and it's fair to say that someone shouldn't reply to a comment he hasn't fully read when what he questions is included in the part of the comment he didn't read. I do not see how that can imply that I don't want anyone to disagree with me so I think you misunderstood. If you see how this is not so please be kind enough to explain.
 
Last edited:
Rysen said:
Oh shit I just realized my original reply was not to you it is a reply to someone else. Even I thought I had reply to your comment but its not your comment.

EDIT: Now I'm confused. Never mind you only replied to my first sentence of my reply and I assumed you were the guy I had replied to.
Click to expand...


OK, but I have started reading your comments now and what I see is a basic "2 wrongs make a right" argument. And you are wrong.

For instance, you claim providers are stealing from people because they are the only game in town. Bullshit. No one is twisting your arm today to do business with the only provider available cause in fact, there is no such thing.

Where I live, in little bitty Sierra Vista AZ. I have DSL from the phone company, Cable from the cable company, wireless from the local wireless providers, Satellite from at least three satellite providers, and I can run a hotspot off my phone and even from my car. Yes, I could use my car as my internet hotspot if it was the best option I had available. And for some people around here they can get wireline service through the power company.

Even someone who only has say Comcast available actually still can get DirectTV, Dish, Hughes Net, and their cell phone provider if they are getting decent 3G or better. Then there is whatever they can get over the airwaves with a regular digital TV antenna.

And still, two wrongs does not make a right. Now there might be a small amount of the country who suffers from poor choices, I know there are. But that doesn't have much impact and is no justification for the volume of piracy going on. Not even close.

What? I'm sitting in Denver off a primary route and torrenting my ass off cause some shit-kicker in West Virginia is getting fucked by Comcast ?

Because it's the principle of the thing right?
 
lcpiper said:
OK, but I have started reading your comments now and what I see is a basic "2 wrongs make a right" argument. And you are wrong.

For instance, you claim providers are stealing from people because they are the only game in town. Bullshit. No one is twisting your arm today to do business with the only provider available cause in fact, there is no such thing.

Where I live, in little bitty Sierra Vista AZ. I have DSL from the phone company, Cable from the cable company, wireless from the local wireless providers, Satellite from at least three satellite providers, and I can run a hotspot off my phone and even from my car. Yes, I could use my car as my internet hotspot if it was the best option I had available. And for some people around here they can get wireline service through the power company.

Even someone who only has say Comcast available actually still can get DirectTV, Dish, Hughes Net, and their cell phone provider if they are getting decent 3G or better. Then there is whatever they can get over the airwaves with a regular digital TV antenna.

And still, two wrongs does not make a right. Now there might be a small amount of the country who suffers from poor choices, I know there are. But that doesn't have much impact and is no justification for the volume of piracy going on. Not even close.

What? I'm sitting in Denver off a primary route and torrenting my ass off cause some shit-kicker in West Virginia is getting fucked by Comcast ?

Because it's the principle of the thing right?
Click to expand...

If your state doesn't suffer from the problem I argued, then you are right. I cannot speak for people living in states where their cable companies are not contributing to political campaigns and have many options rather than a single monopoly. As for the two wrongs does not make a right. I disagree, if the system is cheating someone, people do their best to succeed. Regularly throughout life politicians debate issues to define whats right and what wrong. Stealing is something that is defined by law. If law is biased towards not treating corporate stealing as what it is and treating piracy as stealing then weather piracy is wrong or not is left to a matter of morals and as I am sure you might know morals depends on a persons point of view and if that point of view doesn't agree with yours that doesn't mean is wrong.

Now that we settled that the problem is left to a moral view I will tell you the point of view that doesn't see it as something wrong. Many people believe that due to barriers placed by people who want to exploit them they do not have access to content they would otherwise have access to, so seeing piracy as a way to take action against these barriers is morally right. Let me give you a nice example that people in the U.S. easily understand: if you live in a country where a dictatorship doesn't allow you to see certain content and you are against the dictatorship then using piracy to have access to the content is something that is generally seen in the U.S. as correct because of the propaganda we have against tyranny and in favor of using ways around tyrants. Now often people do not see U.S. corporate dominance of the country as a dictatorship so we don't think is the same situation (but in other points of view it is).

Using that analogy it is the right thing to do under the correct principle.
 
Last edited:
Rysen said:
If your state doesn't suffer from the problem I argued, then you are right. I cannot speak for people living in states where their cable companies are not contributing to political campaigns and have many options rather than a single monopoly. As for the two wrongs does not make a right. I disagree, if the system is cheating someone, people do their best to succeed. Regularly throughout life politicians debate issues to define whats right and what wrong. Stealing is something that is defined by law. If law is biased towards not treating corporate stealing as what it is and treating piracy as stealing then weather piracy is wrong or not is left to a matter of morals and as I am sure you might know morals depends on a persons point of view and if that point of view doesn't agree with yours that doesn't mean is wrong.

Now that we settled that the problem is left to a moral view I will tell you the point of view that doesn't see it as something wrong. Many people believe that due to barriers placed by people who want to exploit them they do not have access to content they would otherwise have access to, so seeing piracy as a way to take action against these barriers is morally right. Let me give you a nice example that people in the U.S. easily understand: if you live in a country where a dictatorship doesn't allow you to see certain content and you are against the dictatorship then using piracy to have access to the content is something that is generally seen in the U.S. as correct because of the propaganda we have against tyranny and in favor of using ways around tyrants. Now often people do not see U.S. corporate dominance of the country as a dictatorship so we don't think is the same situation (but in other points of view it is).

Using that analogy it is the right thing to do under the correct principle.
Click to expand...


There is no way you are going to sell the idea that a company charging too much for it's services is theft, not when people do not have to purchase that service. And you can not argue that this is the case. As long as people have the option, as unreasonable as you fell it is, to choose not to purchase that service, then the company is not stealing from these people. You can call this corporate stealing if you want to and you don't have to change your mind for me. But you are wrong and the connection you insist exists, does not. Let's go to Pennsylvanian where we have recently discussed how the big player there was paid a bunch of money to provide fiber the everyone and only 50% have fiber. The other 50% mostly have other decent options even if it is copper. And a tiny few are really suffering with little of nothing for good bandwidth. Take that state's populace that is suffering from the depredations and corporate stealing and explain to me how these people with their terrible internet connections are responsible for all the data usage that represents all the pirating going on in that State?


The people with this for the internet are not pirating content via torrents.

tin-can-telephone.jpg



The pirates have at least reasonable service. If their service costs more then they think is reasonable they can get something else. As long as you have a clear view of the Southern Skies there are always other choices.

You have not in any way established that corporate stealing is even a real issue here.
 
Rysen said:
Did you even read my stuff? I have already told you. If you don't want to read my stuff don't comment about it. Comcast the company that funds the movies and gets affected by piracy steals from you by creating a monopoly that owns the national and local cable that is owned and sold to them by the goverment (and in case you didn't know the goverment's propery is public property) which they paid governors campaigns in order to get them into their political positions and screw me over by allowing comcast to continue its monopoly. Don't bullshit me by telling me that sales affect an individual person making a movie. If you believe that bullshit I have nothing to speak to you about. More than 50% of movies profit goes to capital investments by owners of the corporation and corporate interest.You must also believe that Comcast is your friend and doing everything in the best interest of the people and not revenue. You know what would make a movie editor, actress, or camera crew get better paid? If comcast didn't have a monopoly over the market and they had a truly competitive market. All those people would get paid better.

It is not a need, you don't get it. It's a right. Cable is public property that we lend through the goverment to fucking corporations. If companies are taking advantage of this system by buying off politicians then yes I have a right to watch content that should be rightfully distributed because I need access to information and entertainment like every other human in the world. Who said that people don't have a need for entertainment? And who told you that people have to opt out of a certain type of entertainment simply because they don't agree with the companies shady business? Do you not get what not having another option means? We can chose to live without cars if we don't like the automotive's industry shady business but we don't because we choose to use cars to go to the place we want for recreation over public transportation, because the other option has been made useless compare to the large investment in highways and the automotive industry that our local goverment has allowed. Same with entertainment, companies like Comcast have ensured that alternatives such as watching independent content is non existent. This is not all a big fucking coincidence.


It's not a number I think is too much. There is no competitive market. There are no reference points for price comparison, they eliminated all of them by removing all possible competitors. This is literally the opposite of the definition of fucking capitalism, not a closed market but a free market where everyone can compete, and you don't use goverment to benefit you. How hard is to get this stuff? Jesus. Did you even go to college? It's basic History, economics, philosophy. For years corporations have been using public property for their own benefit. People In my state also paid for a stadium that is sponsored by Comcast that I didn't agree it should be built with public money. Guess what politicians did not agree with my opinion, specially when organizations with ties to Comcast paid large sums of money to the governors political campaign.
Click to expand...


I read your long posts. But just because you use many words doesn't mean you are saying anything.

You go off on tangents and have no idea what a right is.

To keep it short, you have no right to watch any movie, listen to any music, or play any game you want to just because it's out there. You might want to, but you don't have a right to it.

Let me clarify what I mean by right. The government shouldn't / does not have the power to prevent you from watching, listen, playing any media. But that does not mean that you have a right to free access to whatever media you want.

Your ranting about politicians and donations and so is just you trying to rationalization the choice you made. Also for the most part cable lines are private property.

I'd write more but it's pointless, because you a true believer in whatever pirating you are doing. As well as a moocher/freeloader. Without people paying for content, you would have nothing to pirate.
 
Last edited:
Am I sexist for reading that as 64% of all male adults watch pirated content?

never met a female pirate
 
Previous studies have noted that the "lost sales revenue" due to piracy is actually very small.

One aspect that is mentioned often is that there is a subset of the population that will not pay for content, regardless of its price. In my opinion, these are the real pirates. Some of the rest of the population will resort to piracy when there are no affordable means of content consumption available. Some people will simply go without.

To assume that an act of digital piracy equates to lost revenue is inappropriate. It may, however, be a missed sales opportunity. If content creators focus on making content accessible at reasonable prices, I imagine that their revenues would go up. Take a streaming service like Netflix or Amazon as an example. There is typically a wide variety of content available at what I consider to be a very reasonable price. For a few dollars more, you can have access to DVDs by mail with Netflix to cover the newer movies that will not be available via streaming for a while longer.

I come close to hitting my data cap every month because of Netflix/Amazon streaming, but I haven't pirated anything in a very long time.

In my opinion, the "lost revenue" argument is as dated as the business models of many of the studios spouting it and it is just another way to try to cling to the old way of doing things when the marketplace has evolved beyond what it once was. Their failure to adapt to a changing environment is the real cause of lost sales revenues.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Their failure to adapt to a changing environment is the real cause of lost sales revenues.
Click to expand...
^That's it in a nutshell. If we had 99 cent download songs (the full 'album' versions') available in the 90's, napster and such never would have taken off like it did. Same with movies; once downloading was available, if they'd have reduced the price to a few bucks, no one would have spent all the time necessary to play with torrents and getting video players and odd formats working. Greed on the studio's and music royalty agents part is what fostered the vast majority of piracy. And if that wasn't bad enough, the huge amount of bad press they got from not paying the artists the royalties earned made everyone hate them even more, resulting in the 'fuck you' attitude so many have towards the entertainment industry titans.
 
Trippes said:
Hi all,
Found some alternatives to Pirate Bay:
1. RARBG
2. Extra Torrent
3. Torrenst-pro.pro
More details are here https://www.vpnroot.com/1472/best-pirate-bay-alternatives/
Click to expand...


Umm Trippes, by your post count it looks like you are new here, so I'll try to be gentle.
Comments like this are probably not appreciated by [H].
HardOCP is not pro-piracy. That doesn't mean we don't discuss piracy or that the opinions are from one end of the issue to the other. But you probably should not assume that just because some people here lay blame on others and sound pro-piracy, that the website admins will allow you to point people to websites that host questionable downloads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top