geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: tbc on Mon, 16 March 2015, 15:23:18
-
like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?
i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.
thoughts?
-
Shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? With that kind of attitude our grandchildren are going to grow up in a world devoid of music and film.
There's stealing out of necessity (i.e. you cannot afford it and would otherwise never be able to experience it) and then there's just straight and simple thievery. As someone that works their ass off and helps create entertainment content, I say **** people who steal just because they can.
-
What exactly is their argument? Of course it might be easier to torrent, but it's definitely way more wrong to do that. I think that most (all?) people who torrent would agree that it's "wrong".
The only time I view it as morally acceptable is if you're downloading something that you already own the rights to.
By "wrong" do they maybe mean "the option that a sensible person would avoid"? It's pretty hard to argue against the legality of it...
-
i have arrrrrg'd alot of things in my younger years when i didnt have a job...
i pay for games/music now because i can afford to and enjoy supporting the devs. Im not saying anything is wrong if you pirate, but if you are in a comfortable place in life and its something you really enjoy toss them the $$$.
somethings i do refuse to pay alot for,
1.Photoshop, that price tag is just to rediculous
2.Food, your just gonna **** it out anyways
3.Kanye West music
-
If noone paid for music, people would not stop making music. In fact, there would probably be more musicians and more valuable additions to our culture. Copyright was designed to encourage cultural livelihood, but all it does now is enable censorship.
-
It is of course but I have to say I like paying when developers make thing easier with no drm and such. I hate buying something and then having to deal with a gazillion restrictions.
-
i honestly don't know:
person #1: standard gay hippie from vancouver. spends 15min doing his hair in the morning. makes sure to wear sunglasses that color matches his backpack that matches his phone. 7 different colors of sunglasses apparently.
person #2: business student and works at family business with dad. gamer. asian. doesn't create original work. redditor.
person #3: factory worker. small towner. wants to make music as a career. not likely to happen
all 20smths if it matters.
i've literally never gotten a coherent statement from anyone in 15 years about why torrenting is good, so i didn't bother asking.
these are just the most extremists of free torrenting* supporters.
*there are people that torrent because they want a demo like you used to get or to showroom without actually going to the store. they will buy afterwards if they plan to keep using the content. these are NOT 'free torrenters'; free torrenters want full access to current media without ever paying or watching ads
EDIT:
what is the current climte nowadays? do people discriminate between music, movies. and games? how about ebooks?
-
Yeah, it's either pay for content or get it free with tons of ads. I'd rather see/hear/experience something closer to the way the artist(s) intended rather then have advertisements shoved down my throat.
-
That's a pretty a-moral opinion. Just like a twenty something I know that didn't think she should leave a note on a car she hit and was mad at her boyfriend for doing so. It's not "cool" to do the right thing any more. Especially, if your peers are watching. It's sad really.
-
hope your sex is free, mates.
-
You always pay for it one way or other. :p
-
Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.
-
Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.
...but you don't think it's morally wrong to pay for the content if you easily could do you? That's what the OPs question was.
-
Only reason I still don't pay for my contents (movies,tv shows, musics) is that I know where to get them easily for free. But I have no clues where to find them legally.
...but you don't think it's morally wrong to pay for the content if you easily could do you? That's what the OPs question was.
It can be wrong in the sense that since you can get it for free, with bother.
But it's not morally wrong to pay for it.
-
You always pay for it one way or other.
There is the famous Google quote: "If you are not paying, then YOU are the product."
Google-nomics has turned thousands of years of mercantile tradition on its ear overnight.
I still can't understand how the new information exchange system works, but I will say that for thousands of years musicians were paid for performing live music, then for a scant century an industry grew up wherein artists and an entire ecosystem of middlemen drew their paychecks from selling recorded music.
When I was a teenager, rock bands went on tours (@ $5 tickets) for the purpose of promoting the sales of $5 albums. The "real money" was in the album sales.
Today, since "information wants to be free" bands are back to making their money from tickets, as it always was - except during the 20th century.
And the profits from junk food and T-shirts, of course.
-
if you plan to use a software to make money, buy your own licence after you torrent it
-
hope your sex is free, mates.
Sex is never free mate :/
You end up paying for it one way or the other.
-
hope your sex is free, mates.
Sex is never free. ninja'd
hope your sex is free, mates.
Sex is never free mate :/
You end up paying for it one way or the other.
-
like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?
i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.
thoughts?
So can I come over to your house and take a few things that I like, because it would be wrong to pay for?
-
People look at me refusing to torrent films for them as a "High and mighty, looking down on them" act. Yes, I used to pirate things, but I stopped because I realised how ****ty it is.
It makes no sense whatsoever for it to be wrong too buy something you can get for free.
-
There is a term commonly used in the open source community that goes something like this: "free as in the freedom to view, change, fix, and modify your software, not free as in free beer". Freedom of information does not mean that it doesn't or shouldn't cost anything.
-
People look at me refusing to torrent films
I will admit that I occasionally torrent movies, but it is usually because they aren't available on Netflix, to whom I have paid monthly tribute for nearly 2 decades.
The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.
And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.
PS - I have over 1K LPs and 2K CDs which I paid for, sometimes twice, once for each format, and if I download music it is almost always decades old, so I feel little guilt in that area
-
So, in the case of free software you usually don't pay for the code, but the support and maintenance of the code if you don't want to change it yourself. With music you are paying for the performance/performer not the data which you can play yourself.
-
like the title says, is it wrong to pay for things?
i've met a few people who say that it's wrong to buy music because it can be torrented.
thoughts?
So can I come over to your house and take a few things that I like, because it would be wrong to pay for?
you see...that's what i'm wondering, is this going to be a moral defense for robbery? should i, in the future, be genuinely worried about getting robbed while others cheer because i didn't invest into a 10ft steel wall and armed security?
-
How is it a "moral" defense when the whole idea is immoral?
-
How is it a "moral" defense when the whole idea is immoral?
well, in every war, god is on everyone's side while smiting everyone at the same time. when people choose to be 'dramatic', logic isn't a factor.
morals are rather elastic. it used to be a husband's right to beat his wife as much as he saw fit; he simply had to legally dispose of the body afterwards (aka buy a grave instead of throwing it in yoir neighbor's lawn)
but such a thing would be frowned upon in the present north america yes?
so.....the real question becomes how long does a moral reversal take?
well within one lifetime. there are still 60yr-80yr north american men who don't believe woman should have been granted 'person' status, whereas, this isn't even something most 20 smths even think about.
-
It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause in Western culture. Morality is elastic for sure, but we all know right from wrong which is what morality is.
-
It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause in Western culture. Morality is elastic for sure, but we all know right from wrong which is what morality is.
i could really go on for a long time on how morality has changed over the years, but google is far faster than i am.
EDIT:
western vs eastern views on female infanticide and abortion is a good place to start. it still exists today and the current era of it is relatively short.
-
You don't need to "teach" me just because I, and others, don't agree with you or the changes in our culture that are now acceptable. I can think for myself.
-
Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.
-
Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.
you're right.
i learned in class :)
-
That's great. Seriously.
-
That's great. Seriously.
i am happy that you are happy for me!
-
Kisses. :p
-
It has never been acceptable to take another man's property without cause
This may be a better avenue for debate: how long does the "content" remain the "property" of the "creator" ?
I might consider making the argument that "content" passes into "the public domain" very quickly today (seconds/hours/days/weeks) vs (years/decades - or inane constructs such as "the life of the author + 75 years") and that the toothpaste is already out of the tube.
-
To be clear: I'm not judging anyone for copying some files. I may have or may not have done it in the past myself, but I knew it was "wrong" by society's standards.
For the sake of argument, I don't believe the content in the context of digital media is the property. I believe it's the creator's time you should pay for.
-
I personally don't ARRGGHH any games, but I will for movies that I can't find on Netflix. I also ARRGGHH music if I can't find it off of YouTube in decent quality, but not so much anymore since I have Spotify.
-
Some argue that code, formulas, and even recipes should all be free. I don't necessarily disagree with that. So, let's throw music in there as a "recipe". You can read the code, formula, recipe and try to re-create it or modify it or "cook" it and it may turn out like ****. If you can't do it yourself and you enjoy the results that others produce then why shouldn't you reimburse them for their effort?
-
Here’s my view
You shouldn’t have to pay for garbage and propaganda. Which is what most ‘content’ is. Because there is always someone funding the production of the content (before any end users pay for it), and the sponsor/investor has his opinions, and he rarely controls himself from the temptation to promote his views in some form or other. The recording companies and movie producers then manipulate people into buying this content, which has no real content, so once again people are suckered into buying trash. I call it a scam, and don’t feel obliged to pay for trash.
I used to be a big supporter of indie films when younger. Especially in Singapore, where independent filmmakers not affiliated to the government really struggle. These people often have some brains and sincerity about producing their heartfelt content and they have to fight so much oppression. So I would pay money for movie tickets and watch the latest Hong Kong or Thai or whatever indie movie. (In the US, everyone with a videocam can call himself an indie producer, and there is so much noise and chaff that finding a few kernels of content in that cacophony is much harder.)
Nowadays it is almost unheard of for a ‘mainstream’ artist to be producing his genuine content. Long before his movie or music video or novel is produced, he will have gone through how many meetings with investors/ studio bosses/ marketers/ psychologists/ market analysts/ etc. These slickly produced things are made to manipulate and have little artistic or moral content.
Most of the content I want, like Fohat, is already free (and time-tested, as opposed to the latest Miley Cyrus video of her masturbating or doing whatever outrageous thing to get attention). I don’t want to watch Hollywood garbage, so I don’t pirate their stuff. One time I downloaded Transformers (the movie) because the kids wanted to watch it at a Birthday party. BAD IDEA. The cartoon that I knew as a kid (which was free to air), has become a propaganda video for the US Armed Forces and an advertorial for General Motors. It was a freaking waste of time. Quite fortunately, the kids didn’t like the movie too because they felt the robots looked scary (as opposed to the nice talkative round yellow bug that Bumblebee is in the cartoons) so all the kids, except for an autistic boy, left within 10-15 minutes of the movie. Should I have paid for this? If I had, I would feel so miserable, because I could have more pleasure setting fire to a handful of dollar bills.
BTW, for those who have never watched it, Transformers is strictly a movie for the male 15-25 year old demographic with a maximum IQ of 100 and maximum education of high school. For all older or more intelligent/ educated males, I would recommend porn.
-
Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.
But it is a good place to get an idea of where to go with something. I never reference Wikipedia for uni stuff, but I have used it to get an overview and find keywords for expanding on a search. In that way you shouldn't trust information on Wikipedia but it is still a tool for developing your research.
-
Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.
Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...
Anything that can be pirated WILL be pirated.. Why is this? Because while the Creator himself makes less money thus lowering his PERSONAL happiness... The millions of Pirates INCREASE their collective happiness..
So the net result is greater happiness towards society AT LARGE, given that same original input, despite it not being profitable for the ones involved in that creation.
What is failing is NOT motivational, it is NOT a dearth of content creators or creative people.
The business model is what has begun to fail. The DIRECT sell method from media creator TO end-user is Failing..
This is the result of increased average level of technological access..
They used to ****ing sell ice.. but when everyone bought refrigerators, those ice to your door companies went out of business.. we STILL have Ice today, they just happen to come out of personal refrigerators.. So the ICE business is NOT DEAD, it's changed.
That is exactly what's happening to MEDIA creation and curating... The cost will now shift to another sector..
The very obvious next-sector to now bankroll the shift will be companies like Netflix, Google, ISPs, Large Caps with Advertising.. ETC..
If we are looking through the narrow lens of HUMAN market. COST, is purely an organizational tool. There is NO REAL VALUE in money, the numbers..
VALUE is what those Red people said a long time ago, when you put HAMMER to RAW MATERIALS..
VALUE is the people who swing those hammers, VALUE is in the living..
MONEY is not physically part of the living.. MONEY is the tabulation of opportunity costs at any given time pegged against the # of souls that are currently alive.
(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_098_.gif)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/BNKV434.gif)
-
Can I haz ergodox?
-
Can I haz ergodox?
Egdx*
-
Can I haz ergodox?
This is how the NEW WORLD works..
You see angelina jolie looking super sexy while hacking the computer across a pciex bus..
She's doing all of this while typing into an Ergodox.. An ergodox producer pays into that.. She's looking into a Dell monitor, dell pays for that, she's wearing Victoria secrets lingerie, Victoria secrets pay for that..
This ad component has already been part of the movie industry for the longest time, but NOW because distribution can no longer be monopolized, The cost to produce will fall heavier on investors and advertisers..
THE UPSIDE however, is that the more the movie is seen, either On the silver screen, or FREE at home, OVERALL MORE people are able to see it than before.. So the cost is merely OFFSET and rebalanced versus the traditional model..
-
free =/= stealing
-
Wikipedia is not a very good research tool BTW.
Are you kidding? What are you trying to research, and at what level of detail?
There are many many subjects where Wikipedia is the best single source online, and to get better results you need to hit the library for some obscure book or find a buddy at a university campus to look up paywalled academic journals.
Of course, there are other subjects where Wikipedia is garbage, but the same can be said for any paper encyclopedia, or e.g. to pick an institution usually considered credible, the New York Times.
-
The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.
And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.
It’s obvious why it isn’t... Netflix has to explicitly negotiate the rights for every bit of content they want to host digitally, and for obscure old stuff, it’s just not worth the trouble, and often not even clear who to negotiate with.
The “long tail” material was much easier when Netflix was sending physical disks, because they don’t need any special license to do that; instead, the right to view the content is considered to be embedded with the physical object.
This is precisely the problem with the current copyright regime. Copyright should last no more than 20–30 years, tops, or at the very least should require increasingly expensive registration as the years go by, to make sure people are serious about keeping stuff out of public reach. Otherwise, there’s a giant back catalog of material that will be basically forgotten and ignored, because no one has the legal rights to distribute it.
-
Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.
Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...
Here's what aint free for the farmer (excluding subsidies):
Labor, materials, heavy machinery, distribution, logistics, gas, electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, & land.
-
The promise and expectation was that Netflix's online offerings would catch up with, and eventually supplant, the mail-in disc exchange. Instead, it seems like they continually offer less, not more, online.
And I mostly watch weird, old, unpopular, oddball stuff, which should be exactly the "back-catalog" that they make most easily available.
It’s obvious why it isn’t... Netflix has to explicitly negotiate the rights for every bit of content they want to host digitally, and for obscure old stuff, it’s just not worth the trouble, and often not even clear who to negotiate with.
The “long tail” material was much easier when Netflix was sending physical disks, because they don’t need any special license to do that; instead, the right to view the content is considered to be embedded with the physical object.
This is precisely the problem with the current copyright regime. Copyright should last no more than 20–30 years, tops, or at the very least should require increasingly expensive registration as the years go by, to make sure people are serious about keeping stuff out of public reach. Otherwise, there’s a giant back catalog of material that will be basically forgotten and ignored, because no one has the legal rights to distribute it.
Mickey Mouse
http://artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/
-
Can I haz ergodox?
This is how the NEW WORLD works..
You see angelina jolie looking super sexy while hacking the computer across a pciex bus..
She's doing all of this while typing into an Ergodox.. An ergodox producer pays into that.. She's looking into a Dell monitor, dell pays for that, she's wearing Victoria secrets lingerie, Victoria secrets pay for that..
This ad component has already been part of the movie industry for the longest time, but NOW because distribution can no longer be monopolized, The cost to produce will fall heavier on investors and advertisers..
THE UPSIDE however, is that the more the movie is seen, either On the silver screen, or FREE at home, OVERALL MORE people are able to see it than before.. So the cost is merely OFFSET and rebalanced versus the traditional model..
Thank you for smoking.
-
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/5a3a4e5b77517641fd004e7e1a0b3fcd/tumblr_nkhuyravMC1t1j3czo1_400.gif)
-
Why are there two threads (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=70013.0) on this?
-
TIL I learned geekhack is a bunch of plebeians and socialists.
-
TIL I learned geekhack is a bunch of plebeians and socialists.
But the thingy is the something of the proletariat!
-
lol @ thread
-
There was actually a good reason in my country to torrent until recently.
- Strictly speaking it wasn't illegal to download something but it was to spread it.
- An average internet speed of 10 Mbps back in 2012 meant downloading was fast. (For comparison, my provider has upgraded all its customers this year to 30+ Mbps and my home is doing 120+ Mbps (http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4220247307))
- It was easier and gave you much more content
- It will often take months for the latest movies or series to come to Europe. (F.E. Big Hero 6 was released this february whereas the US got it in October)
If you were a fan of anime or other niche entertainment your only options were to look for a place that sold imported ones and use a region free DVD-player.
Blu-ray is even worse because for some reason Europe was grouped with Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Region_codes) aka a huge group that can't even afford them making the market even smaller. Oh and Netflix and the like took until September 2013 to come here.
That being said;
Yes it is wrong to simply demand something be free instead of paying for it IF you yourself demand payment for your time.
You are not paying for the content itself but the time that was invested in honing the skills necessary to bring this to you.
Google Docs might work okay for most people but I prefer MS Office. And I think their subscription plan with Office 365 is great.
Hardware doesn't need to be replaced until you find yourself at a point where you can no longer do what you want to do without upgrading.
But for some reason we have come to accept that certain companies stop software support for phones as soon as they leave the factory, making the phone obsolete while other ones can stay up to date with the occasional software update.
You are paying them for their time.
Sure, there are custom roms but that means you, or other people you are piggybacking on, are spending their time to keep it up to date.
...
Reminds me of this:
(http://funnyand.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/time-money-energy-Chart.jpg)
You see a lot of the people that torrented when they were young stopped doing so as they grew older. Time becomes more important than money.
It's why they spend money on a mechanic instead of heading into the garage.
You always pay for it one way or other.
There is the famous Google quote: "If you are not paying, then YOU are the product."
Google-nomics has turned thousands of years of mercantile tradition on its ear overnight.
"If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product."
blue_beetle on MetaFilter (http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent#3256046) - (2010)
Well, most likely. It seems to be a quote from the internet
Even though it is wrong (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/18272921446/stop-saying-if-youre-not-paying-youre-product.shtml).
[...] One time I downloaded Transformers (the movie) because the kids wanted to watch it at a Birthday party. BAD IDEA. The cartoon that I knew as a kid (which was free to air), has become a propaganda video for the US Armed Forces and an advertorial for General Motors. It was a freaking waste of time. Quite fortunately, the kids didn�t like the movie too because they felt the robots looked scary (as opposed to the nice talkative round yellow bug that Bumblebee is in the cartoons) so all the kids, except for an autistic boy, left within 10-15 minutes of the movie. Should I have paid for this? If I had, I would feel so miserable, because I could have more pleasure setting fire to a handful of dollar bills.
BTW, for those who have never watched it, Transformers is strictly a movie for the male 15-25 year old demographic with a maximum IQ of 100 and maximum education of high school. For all older or more intelligent/ educated males, I would recommend porn.
QFT
And Transformers 4: Age of extinction is the only movie that I just shut off and walked away from. It was even worse than a million ways to die in the west. And the only reason that I didn't walk out on that one was because it was in cinema and I didn't want to waste my money that way.
-
TIL I learned geekhack is a bunch of plebeians and socialists.
Socialist 4 lyfe M8
-
The categorical imperative applies nicely to these sort of questions.
If everyone pirated (see: stole) then the concept of property would seize to exist.
Without the concept of property then nothing could be stolen (as it couldn't be owned).
A contradiction arises, thus the assertion "pirating is right" can't logically be sane.
Personally, I pirated when I was younger and didn't have a disposable income. Now I have the cash flow to spend on digital goods, so I do. I didn't make excuses to justify when I did pirate though. I accepted that it was wrong then, just as it is wrong now.
-
Why are there two threads on this?
So that the evil twin can have a separate voice.
-
Since the gaming industry is more interested in developing DRM than playable games you kinda have to pirate most games in order to se if you can play them on release.
I paid for win8 and now I will never pay microsoft a singel dollar ever again. Piece of **** software
Wont ever pay Adobe for PS until I start to make money from it and never for any cloud trash solutions.
-
It depends.
For games and music, it's nice to try before you buy. If it's decent, for sure, pay the artist / developer their dues. My conscience won't let me not do this. If it's crap, then... at least you've dodged a bullet. People are happiest when making "fair" deals. Over / underpaying the perceived value of the product is not satisfying.
So being forced to buy a whole album when you've only heard a couple songs is a bit hit or miss. If you hate the rest of the album, you feel ripped off. On the other hand, if you get the whole thing for free and love it, you won't value it as much if you don't pay for it and it should "sit wrong" with you, prick your conscience, too.
For some games the torrent is a better experience than the legit copy, usually for copy protection reasons, which is kind of ironic. Too many game publishers make the mistake of forcing strong (and complicated or plain broken) DRM down the throats of consumers and then complaining of lost sales when those same consumers rip it because of the DRM crap.
Something I realised early on in life and I'm surprised so many publishers haven't is there are 3 main groups of gamers. Those who'll always get the "free" version, those who'll always buy the legit version and those who may do either depending on the perceived value of the product and the cost to them (in terms of time, money and convenience). That 3rd group are the ones they need to target and attract with good value and no added inconvenience over a ripped copy, possibly with some extra account-based incentives or whatever to sweeten the "legit" route. The "good value" part is pretty hard to find in many games nowadays, although there are some notable exceptions (GTA series and some others).
Also, the perceived value is entirely different for different people. This is why I really love the way Radiohead's "pay what you want" system was done for their "In Rainbows" album.
I have a friend who just loves to get the whole package when he gets a new game. The printed "manual", how it looks on his shelf, etc. Same for another of my friends and his CD collection. I don't care so much about those things, but I do want to make "fair" deals.
I guess the big issue for me is more about ethics education and social pressures than about "should you torrent or not". A well brought up and educated person will make the balanced decision, despite social pressure to do either of the extreme options and will feel most satisfied when doing so.
-
Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.
Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...
Here's what aint free for the farmer (excluding subsidies):
Labor, materials, heavy machinery, distribution, logistics, gas, electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, & land.
This is a tp thread, what are you doing bringing logic and valid points in here?
-
Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.
Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...
Here's what aint free for the farmer (excluding subsidies):
Labor, materials, heavy machinery, distribution, logistics, gas, electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, & land.
This is a tp thread, what are you doing bringing logic and valid points in here?
I'm not sure how you all so wonderfully missed the point.
He's not saying it's thankless for the farmer, only that we don't pay the sun because it's by and large free.
If the farmer could get fertilizer free, or gas for free, don't you think he'd do that instead of paying for it?
TADA.
-
Farmers get sunlight for free. Sunlight is utilized to grow the crops. Farmers sell the crops to the consumer.
Now you're telling me, we should turn around, thank the sun, and pay it for the sunlight...
Here's what aint free for the farmer (excluding subsidies):
Labor, materials, heavy machinery, distribution, logistics, gas, electricity, water, seeds, fertilizer, & land.
This is a tp thread, what are you doing bringing logic and valid points in here?
I'm not sure how you all so wonderfully missed the point.
He's not saying it's thankless for the farmer, only that we don't pay the sun because it's by and large free.
If the farmer could get fertilizer free, or gas for free, don't you think he'd do that instead of paying for it?
TADA.
I don't appreciate whatever mod moved my message from one thread to another.
Taking my words entirely out of context.
This isn't even a tp4 thread.
-
i honestly don't know:
person #1: standard gay hippie from vancouver. spends 15min doing his hair in the morning. makes sure to wear sunglasses that color matches his backpack that matches his phone. 7 different colors of sunglasses apparently.
person #2: business student and works at family business with dad. gamer. asian. doesn't create original work. redditor.
person #3: factory worker. small towner. wants to make music as a career. not likely to happen
all 20smths if it matters.
i've literally never gotten a coherent statement from anyone in 15 years about why torrenting is good, so i didn't bother asking.
these are just the most extremists of free torrenting* supporters.
*there are people that torrent because they want a demo like you used to get or to showroom without actually going to the store. they will buy afterwards if they plan to keep using the content. these are NOT 'free torrenters'; free torrenters want full access to current media without ever paying or watching ads
EDIT:
what is the current climte nowadays? do people discriminate between music, movies. and games? how about ebooks?
This is why torrenting is good and how some people/companies have used it to this effect.
Advertising.
not just advertising, the most powerful form of advertising is, "word of mouth".
case in point,
You could play "sh*t be gone" plumbers commercials 24/7, it wouldn't really matter, until.
until you call up your friend and you're like "hey, who did you use to fix your toilet and they didn't rip you off?"
word of mouth
You have whatever is torrented, lets say "Kingsman" poor college kid movieguy torrents it, loves it.
This broke ass college kid is poor, he wouldn't have seen this film otherwise.
broke ass college kid goes to a "kegger" or whatever frat party, he tells 4 or 10 other kids "yo kingsman is the bomb diggity" (or whatever new language kids talk in nowadays) and since of these kids are dumb frat guys and probably use macs, torrents would be too difficult for their asses to handle beyond singing racist hanging songs, so they'll just all goto a movie theatre and see it, since the "movieguy" said it was good.
these dumb frat boys would have just spent the night singing racist songs, now instead they all go see a british guy kill lots of church go'ers and movie ticket money.
-
I purchase all my music. My thoughts is that I would like to support the artist. Yes, I know very little ends up going to the artists nowadays, but I still feel better doing that then torrenting the album. Plus, I like to own a physical copy of the album. I have been looking into buying a record player and buying some vinyl albums especially the upcoming 'Kintsugi' by Death Cab for Cutie because the white and gold vinyl is awesome and the slip mat addition is great.
-
One of the biggest issues I have, is doing so is often the only reasonable way to even obtain some content. There are too many out of print content, and finding rare out of print VHS tapes, vinyl, books, whatever can be a real expensive pain in the ass. In which case, it's all used and you're not paying anything to those that originally created it anyway. In which case some people would argue that the used market for physical media is equally as bad, since they aren't getting paid again for it on each sale.
Additionally we still have loads of absurdly antiquated regional distribution, where the only way to get things semi-legitimately is to import them. In which case you then face annoying region lock DRM and other stupidly unnecessary things.
If it wasn't for someone making a digital rip and posting it, it would essentially be inaccessible. This is the reason I really dislike the present copyright and big media distribution systems. You have them reinstating copyrights indefinitely, then at the same time refusing to keep content available in current useable formats, or refusing to make it available outside of one small geographic area for no good reason. If the system wasn't so broken, and set for only sole purpose of protecting rich guys then all that stuff should have gone public domain. If someone else wants to take the risk to remaster something and re-release it on BD or whatever they should be able to do so. Art should be created to benefit us all culturally, not locked up and controlled by the rich. Studios/publishers have loads of media masters that haven't been viewed/heard in generations, or in some cases ever.
Copyright should be trashed, and set to allow them a definite ONE TIME fixed period of something like 5-10 years maximum to recoup their investment and opportunity to make any profit, then go public domain. Until things get more reasonable I will continue to acquire what I wish by whatever means.
As far as people that feel it's wrong on 'moral/ethical' grounds... I say it's more wrong for them to waste multi-billions on garbage media, and in some cases not even releasing it afterwards when there are real problems all around the world that could make much more effective use of those resources. It's a huge joke. It's too bad they can't do better things for all mankind instead.
-
BTW, for those who have never watched it, Transformers is strictly a movie for the male 15-25 year old demographic with a maximum IQ of 100 and maximum education of high school. For all older or more intelligent/ educated males, I would recommend porn.
QFT
And Transformers 4: Age of extinction is the only movie that I just shut off and walked away from. It was even worse than a million ways to die in the west. And the only reason that I didn't walk out on that one was because it was in cinema and I didn't want to waste my money that way.
[/quote]
Seriously, if you're a working adult, you probably have better things to do. Nowadays I will happily lose some money just to save some time.
-
Seriously, if you're a working adult, you probably have better things to do. Nowadays I will happily lose some money just to save some time.
an Adult would type the name of the movie into google and on the right hand side immediately see 4 different ratings from different aggregator review sites such as imdb/metacritic/rottentomatoes etc. while you should judge media for yourself, the best use of these review/critic sites is to NOPE NOPE NOPE, avoid crappy movie like the plague.