106 réponses à ce sujet

[Iceyone]

Yes, let's go there. Since you're questioning the morality of piracy - let's address the other side of the coin - the morality of companies that turn out buggy, substandard, untested pieces of rubbish, sold on a wagon-load of lies and deceptive marketing.

 

If you want to question the morality of the pirate, then you must address the morality of the corporate suits who sell games they know are worthless - and hide behind online sales and Steam store-fronts to protect them from consumers who'd be beating their door down in a brick-and-mortar business model.

 

You can't say the pirate is immoral without looking at the morality of companies that are (supposedly) wronged.

 

I can say that pirating is immoral and I do as that is what I believe. There is no "other side of the coin", many business models in many fields may seem immoral, if any company is guilty of what you say, then you do what most people do and either don't buy or invest in their product or you return it if disatisified after purchase that is your right, those are the options with power, however little it may seem. I don't believe you should be able to just help yourself to games etc and use/play their products without paying based on your reasoning.

Imo, you aren't helping change corporate thinking or address marketing strategies by cracking a game to play it *shrug*.

 

It's all just my opinion obviously

[Pasquale1234]

It would be grossly dishonest to - as you suggest - that piracy and purchasing habits can be decoupled. That if they were strictly prevented from piracy that their purchasing habits would be unaffected.

Yet that's the entire premise of your argument: that somehow piracy leads to more purchases / greater revenues.

Unless your argument is that pirates also purchase some content, and that's actually kind of a no-brainer. Like I said in my very first post, the study only shows that those who pirate digital media also purchase some.
 

To further show the problem with your argument - let's examine blind people. They generally have more acute hearing and touch. If we accept your argument, then their hearing and tactile sense acuity has nothing at all to do with their blindness.
 
I don't think it's difficult to see the absurdity of your suggestion.

Speaking of absurdity - are you actually trying to draw a parallel between people who choose to casually engage in an illegal activity and those with a genuine physical disability?
 

No, I was referring to the CBC article - which quoted the authors as suggesting the damage of piracy is grossly exaggerated and piracy may actually benefit them. If you disagree with the conclusions - then argue with the authors of the study, not with me.

Neither of which their "study" proved. In fact, they question the authenticity of the data released by content creators and acknowledge their need for what would be, in their eyes, more accurate information.

Those quotes you're so fond of are the theories they set out demonstrate - not actual conclusions supported by evidence.
 

I think it's interesting that I've cited sources to support my argument, yet you have not cited a single source of your own. Yes, very interesting.

Again - I've not put forth any argument. I am only examining the veracity of yours.
 

I disagree. And so do many other articles which cite the same and similar studies. If I am mistaken on the interpretation of the article - then so are many authors, including the CBC reporter who seems to have interviewed the authors.
 
Apparently you know how to interpret the study better than the authors themselves. Fantastic. Go and apply for a job at LSE.

All hail the mighty knowledge gods capable of writing an opinion piece for an academic institution!

Seriously.

I read the study, and it is similar to many others produced by students, staff, and faculty at various academic institutions. It puts forth a premise or 10, and then asserts "evidence" to support their preconceived notions. Such studies do not represent the actual official position of said institution.

The entire piece can be summarized as follows:

- A file-sharing culture exists on the internet.
- Some content creators are using CC licensing and collaboration instead of traditional copyrights.
- We don't believe the industry is losing as much income to piracy as they say they are. Plus, they have higher revenues from concerts and legal streaming to replace any potential revenue they may have lost due to piracy.
- We believe piracy actually helps the industry.
- Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce on individuals; perhaps enforcing them only on organizations would be a better policy.
- Existing copyright law needs to change to adapt to the file-sharing culture.

The only thing it actually proves is that some other people share your opinion. No surprise there.

[Lennard Testarossa]

Peas and carrots. I've already dealt with this. Same entertainment budget. That's the practice of Nielsen for evaluating entertainment expenditures. Go argue with them.

 

As to the raw data of the studies - go ahead and challenge the conclusions of the authors straight to them. It's trivial enough to find their academic email addresses. It's their conclusions, not mine - so don't ask me for their numbers - ask them. They're academics writing about a highly contentious topic - and since you seem to think you've caught them out fudging the numbers, academic fame and stardom await!

 

Your brilliance seems to grow with every post. Surely you must have academic institutions falling over themselves to recruit you.

 

You haven't 'dealt' with anything. No part of what you said adresses the fact that correlation isn't causation in any way. 

 

There is no bloody 'raw data'. They aren't presenting any data on this topic in your 'study'. And it isn't even a bloody study, it's a 'Media Policy Brief'. You say 'Here, have this 'study', it totally proves my point!'. And when challenged on the contents of this study, what you anwser is essentially 'I have no clue about what that study actually did'. Do you always accept any statement made by anyone from an academic background without questioning it or understanding the evidence, or do you only do this when the statement agrees with what you wish to be true?

 

Also, I already am at an 'academic institution'. No need for me to be recruited.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

Yet that's the entire premise of your argument: that somehow piracy leads to more purchases / greater revenues.

 

A lie. I never asserted that. I have asserted that the deleterious effects of piracy are grossly exaggerated. I didn't state that more piracy == more sales. To count every pirated copy as a full MSRP loss is absurd and fails to acknowledge the gains.

 

 

Speaking of absurdity - are you actually trying to draw a parallel between people who choose to casually engage in an illegal activity and those with a genuine physical disability?

 

Your logic, not mine. I just applied YOUR logic to another area to see how well it stands up. If you don't like it, then look in the mirror.

 

 

Neither of which their "study" proved.

 

Straw man argument. I never said the studies "proved" anything. Asserted, indicated or conclusions of the authors. That's a far cry from "prove".

 

The fact that you're trying to imply that I have, shows the desperate state of your position.

 

 

Such studies do not represent the actual official position of said institution.

 

Again, the straw man argument.

 

What academic institution has an "official position" on any paper published? Perhaps in North Korea, but not in the rest of the world. I did not assert this and you're being grossly dishonest to imply that I did.

 

 

All hail the mighty knowledge gods capable of writing an opinion piece for an academic institution!.

 

I'll trust the conclusions of a civil engineer over my own "gut instinct" on the structural safety of a building, even though I don't have the academic background to crunch all the numbers. I'll trust the theories of a physicist on what happens in the centre of a star, over what my imagination can cobble together.

 

And I'll certainly trust their interpretation of the data over yours... oh wait, you don't have a position. You're just a critic with nothing to contribute.

 

The only thing it actually proves is that some other people share your opinion. No surprise there.

 

And once more you conclude with the lie. I didn't write "prove" anywhere. Yet there you go again, repeating the lie.

 

The fact that you have to resort to such desperate measures shows the weakness of your arguments.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

...it isn't even a bloody study, it's a 'Media Policy Brief'..

 

You're quibbling over what it calls itself? I used a generic term for an academic paper.

 

edit:

By your argument, an English prof is academically dishonest to refer to MLK's Birmingham Jail letter as an "essay", since it specifically refers to itself as a "letter". It's dishonest to examine it as an essay - because it clearly is not one! That's your logic. Brilliant. I wonder how many English classrooms follow your criteria?

 

If there's a specific definition on what constitutes the proper and improper use of the word "study" - then by all means enlighten me.

 

 

 'Here, have this 'study', it totally proves my point!'..

 

Really? Where? Where did I write "proves"?

 

Straw man argument. I never wrote that.

 

 

 when challenged on the contents of this study, what you anwser is essentially 'I have no clue about what that study actually did'.

 

I'm not going to grind through their numbers and examine their methodology in minutae. That's for their peers to do. Not my job and I'd be dishonest to assert that I could competently do it.

 

But apparently honesty isn't a big deal to you. Proof is in the pudding, as they say.

[MooseheadMcMoose]

There is no "other side of the coin"

 

That's wrong on so many levels, it's difficult to respond.

 

Every issue of competing interests has (at least) two sides. Every. Single. One.

 

 

 do what most people do and either don't buy or invest in their product or you return it if disatisified after purchase that is your right, those are the options with power,

 

Except that consumer rights legislation hasn't caught up with digital sales. I can't argue "fit for purpose", since it hasn't been established how that applies to digital goods. And that's ignoring the whole issue of jurisdiction - what laws apply to the sale? The laws where I typed in my order? The laws where the vendor's server processed my payment? The head office of said company?

 

Your behaviour model works when dealing with brick-and-mortar companies selling something you walk out of the store with. But it doesn't work with online sales and digital products.

 

 

 I don't believe you should be able to just help yourself to games etc and use/play their products without paying based on your reasoning.

 

I don't believe that either. If you play it (sufficiently), you should pay for it. Though that said, there are strong arguments that trying a game first (pirated) is the only way to protect oneself in the digital market. With so many marketing lies, altered "game play footage" and disingenuous (or outright lies) claims made by publishers - it's hard to argue that downloading a copy and taking it for a "test drive", so to speak, is not understandable.

 

But I also don't believe the claims from the industry that they're losing billions  and their whole existence is threatened by bittorrent. The economics don't support that assertion.

[BioWareMod03]

This thread has run its course. We are done here.