Argument Thread

[JCTC]

HERE!!!

[Redhollowlives999]

Woah woah wait this belongs to DV? O___o

Nope sorry nuh uh. I won't accept this. Put it back here you found it before he eats our kidneys!

Again!




Let's discuss something else. Like what do y'all think about pirating?

I absolutely despise it. Most annoyingly accepted method of theft ever. People have this dumb idea that it's okay to steal online because they can get away with it.

[JCTC]

I think everyone should do it.

[Redhollowlives999]

I think everyone should do it.

'Kay... WHY?

[Zup]

Case-by-case basis like everything else.

On one side, you got people in other countries that simply have no access to certain media due to distribution and licensing laws and all'a that, and use piracy as a means of accessing the work, which would otherwise be impossible.

Related to that are just people who wanna access stuff like games that're rare, no longer in production, can't be legally obtained realistically.

Others don't like certain distribution services that products are forcibly tied to, whereas others wanna have a way to "test out" certain products before considering purchasing 'em (usually for stuff like games that don't have demos).

Then you have another group of peeps who just hate certain corporations but still wanna enjoy their products without directly supportin' 'em.

And a whole other group who can't afford stuff, or just don't wanna pay for things and don't care.

For the most part, I don't really care. I understand that I participate in it to some related degree by watchin' videos on YouTube and other sites that uploaders technically don't have the right to upload, or by savin' and linkin' to pictures on other sites without express permission/crediting the people who made 'em. In professional consumer junk, I do make it a point to buy all'a my music, games, movies, etc, but whatevs.

The justification, when not due to distribution, usually revolves around "It's not stealing, it's copying" or "I wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so the company doesn't lose money on my copy of it" or somethin' along those lines. Those're the aspects I take issue with, although not to the point that I'll preach about it or demand they stop their behavior. They can do whatever they want, and it doesn't get me pissy or nothin'.

As a whole, 's obviously a "wrong" thing to do, 'cause regardless of your feelin's on the corporation or the pricin' system or not havin' a demo or whatever, the owner/creator of the work has every right to decide how to distribute their stuff, and it ain't right to circumvent that for pretty much any reason. That bein' said, I still don't care, and people can and will continue to do it.

's a very multi-dimensional issue (like pretty much everything in the world), and most arguments have merit to 'em. My stance is, in conclusion: I disagree with the practice, but don't really care what people do. I have my own potential solutions in the future that I'll certainly try'n put inna practice, and I do plan on tryna help solve this problem by doin' my part.

[Redhollowlives999]

Case-by-case basis like everything else.

Pay attention, you're about to see a pro explanation at work.

On one side, you got people in other countries that simply have no access to certain media due to distribution and licensing laws and all'a that, and use piracy as a means of accessing the work, which would otherwise be impossible.

The validity of this argument is always in question. For example, I can't digitally buy any of SNSD's Japanese albums, but I DO have access to buying physical discs, be it via some remote small store in the middle of the sewer downtown, or by ordering it online in any shopping site. People sometimes use the excuse of "it's too much work" to pirate in this situation, which is why I can't trust it completely -- there ARE loopholes to those circumstances. Just depends on how much people care. It'd probably take me DAYS of hard work to get those discs, as opposed to the mere minutes it could take me to get them illegally, but idc.

Related to that are just people who wanna access stuff like games that're rare, no longer in production, can't be legally obtained realistically.

I consider this acceptable, especially for exceptionally rare games. Saw a game valued at over hundreds (pretty much thousands) due to how old and good it was.

However, I'd prefer to read about it, personally. Unless I've owned the game at least once in the past (through a more legal method), then I'm fine with grabbing an Iso. But more likely than not I'll go for the physical stuff (like when I broke my Legaia disc, I DID download an Iso, honestly, but I pretty much got rid of it as soon as I bought another disc).

Others don't like certain distribution services that products are forcibly tied to, whereas others wanna have a way to "test out" certain products before considering purchasing 'em (usually for stuff like games that don't have demos).

This one's a bit of a weak argument. I get some people like spendin' their money wisely, but I've met tons of people who do this and then don't delete their purchases right after due to laziness. The problem with this is they want to dictate things to their liking. For example, instead of downloading it, you can just as easily watch some videos online to get a feel for it, or read some reviews. There ARE alternatives.

Then you have another group of peeps who just hate certain corporations but still wanna enjoy their products without directly supportin' 'em.

Completely, just, no. Pirating their product might not be supportin'em fiscally, but you're still supporting them in more ways than one. It's like sayin' "I don't like the owner of this store but I like their shoes so imma just take it". Don't work.

And a whole other group who can't afford stuff, or just don't wanna pay for things and don't care.

This is the majority. The group of people who can't afford it shouldn't be wasting their time with it. If you're too poor to afford a .99 cent song, but stable enough to afford the internet you're using to take the song, and stable enough to afford the device you're loading it up to, then you need some SERIOUS financial help, like ASAP.

More likely than not, people pirate for that very reason (the latter reason).

For the most part, I don't really care. I understand that I participate in it to some related degree by watchin' videos on YouTube and other sites that uploaders technically don't have the right to upload, or by savin' and linkin' to pictures on other sites without express permission/crediting the people who made 'em. In professional consumer junk, I do make it a point to buy all'a my music, games, movies, etc, but whatevs.

Well that varies on individual scales. Watchin' a certain video can be wrong depending on the certain rights bestowed by the original publisher. Most of the time, if it's displayed on the internet and no copyrighted directly on the material, then people'll just take it, and really, I don't see why they should be punished for doing so. However, if the creator of a drawing/picture/what have you flat out states they don't want their material to be used however, then that's it. The overall ordeal is quite flexible, and as long as it doesn't cross into the consumer market, I don't see anything wrong with it.

The justification, when not due to distribution, usually revolves around "It's not stealing, it's copying" or "I wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so the company doesn't lose money on my copy of it" or somethin' along those lines. Those're the aspects I take issue with, although not to the point that I'll preach about it or demand they stop their behavior. They can do whatever they want, and it doesn't get me pissy or nothin'.

I always compare this to stealing directly from the artist's wallet (when referring to the music side of the market), or even robbing a child. Saying this gives off a very "I do it cuz I can" attitude, which ordinarily is what drives people into jail. It's like if cops just went around shooting whomever they want because "they can". Not very fair, and someone ends up hurt; in this case it's the artist at hand.

Not to say I get pissy about it, but I do have the occasional ">__>" moment when people talk about pirating like it's not a big issue and use the "millions of people do it, why can't I" excuse. Using the whole to justify a speck never sits well with me. Back to the stealin' candy from a baby--doin' it because you can get away with it doesn't justify the fact that you're stealing from someone who can't do anything about.

As a whole, 's obviously a "wrong" thing to do, 'cause regardless of your feelin's on the corporation or the pricin' system or not havin' a demo or whatever, the owner/creator of the work has every right to decide how to distribute their stuff, and it ain't right to circumvent that for pretty much any reason.

What it comes down to.

That bein' said, I still don't care, and people can and will continue to do it.

I can't get over it completely--it's a pretty big deal to steal, to me. Especially from my favorite artists no less, people who a lot of times pull all nighters just to finish one track for their fans (as well as for themselves), only to have their hard work stolen from them. Not cool.

's a very multi-dimensional issue (like pretty much everything in the world), and most arguments have merit to 'em. My stance is, in conclusion: I disagree with the practice, but don't really care what people do. I have my own potential solutions in the future that I'll certainly try'n put inna practice, and I do plan on tryna help solve this problem by doin' my part.

My only solution is to follow your idea or to burn the world into the ground and start over from scratch. Literally.

[GoldenPower89]

If games/movies/music haven't been release in North America, I generally don't feel bad about pirating them. In most cases, I'll pay for stuff if I'm able to do so. I am against piracy, but I will pirate unobtainable things.

[Redhollowlives999]

If games/movies/music haven't been release in North America, I generally don't feel bad about pirating them. In most cases, I'll pay for stuff if I'm able to do so. I am against piracy, but I will pirate unobtainable things.

Eh. Sure, I'd find this acceptable, but usually patience can fix this. Eventually, if demand is high enough, it'll come to America.

[Zup]

On one side, you got people in other countries that simply have no access to certain media due to distribution and licensing laws and all'a that, and use piracy as a means of accessing the work, which would otherwise be impossible.

The validity of this argument is always in question. For example, I can't digitally buy any of SNSD's Japanese albums, but I DO have access to buying physical discs, be it via some remote small store in the middle of the sewer downtown, or by ordering it online in any shopping site. People sometimes use the excuse of "it's too much work" to pirate in this situation, which is why I can't trust it completely -- there ARE loopholes to those circumstances. Just depends on how much people care. It'd probably take me DAYS of hard work to get those discs, as opposed to the mere minutes it could take me to get them illegally, but idc.

I meant this more so for people from other countries. America's great 'cause we typically get access to pretty much everything -- that's not the same for all other nations, though. So while we can certainly import and order from foreign retailers, the justification for this particular argument is more so for people all around the world in countries (typically this applies to people from, say, China) that don't have the same legal distribution perks that we do.

Related to that are just people who wanna access stuff like games that're rare, no longer in production, can't be legally obtained realistically.

I consider this acceptable, especially for exceptionally rare games. Saw a game valued at over hundreds (pretty much thousands) due to how old and good it was.

Why? Is it not still stealin' somethin' you legally don't have access to? Thought you were against the practice vehemently.

However, I'd prefer to read about it, personally. Unless I've owned the game at least once in the past (through a more legal method), then I'm fine with grabbing an Iso. But more likely than not I'll go for the physical stuff (like when I broke my Legaia disc, I DID download an Iso, honestly, but I pretty much got rid of it as soon as I bought another disc).

But the creators of those works did not intend for consumers to be able to access their work for free by downloadin' those ISOs, which you later agreed was the be-all end-all flat-line stance.

Others don't like certain distribution services that products are forcibly tied to, whereas others wanna have a way to "test out" certain products before considering purchasing 'em (usually for stuff like games that don't have demos).

This one's a bit of a weak argument. I get some people like spendin' their money wisely, but I've met tons of people who do this and then don't delete their purchases right after due to laziness. The problem with this is they want to dictate things to their liking. For example, instead of downloading it, you can just as easily watch some videos online to get a feel for it, or read some reviews. There ARE alternatives.

But what about all those people who swear that they do delete those pirated copies (such as yourself) and do go out and purchase legit copies of the pirated stuff they tested out and liked?

Sure, there're other outlets like videos and reviews, but those aren't objective or directly tied to the user's experience, like a pirated "demo" is. There's certainly a difference between watchin' some videos or readin' a couple'a peoples' reviews and experiencing somethin' like a game for yourself.

Then you have another group of peeps who just hate certain corporations but still wanna enjoy their products without directly supportin' 'em.

Completely, just, no. Pirating their product might not be supportin'em fiscally, but you're still supporting them in more ways than one. It's like sayin' "I don't like the owner of this store but I like their shoes so imma just take it". Don't work.

If you take those shoes, the store loses a physical item that they could have potentially sold and already cost money to manufacture.

But takin' digital files doesn't technically remove a physical item with a limited quantity to sell 'cause you're just makin' a copy of the product.

You don't steal a shirt from the store, you just take a picture of the design and print it onna your own shirt for free, right?

Just like you don't steal a Legaia game from the store shelf but instead you just download a copy of the game someone made without givin' money to the devs or publishers.

And a whole other group who can't afford stuff, or just don't wanna pay for things and don't care.

This is the majority.

You sure?

The group of people who can't afford it shouldn't be wasting their time with it.

But you can't afford every song or TV show or movie that you listen to/watch online either, and I'm sure that you don't access all'a those things via the legal owner's mandated distribution services, unknowingly or not.

If you're too poor to afford a .99 cent song, but stable enough to afford the internet you're using to take the song, and stable enough to afford the device you're loading it up to, then you need some SERIOUS financial help, like ASAP.

But what about those who don't pay for the Internet themselves and also don't have income to pay for the songs either? They're not financially wonkin' up their priorities -- maybe they're just kids whose parents pay for their Internet and computer and other devices.

For the most part, I don't really care. I understand that I participate in it to some related degree by watchin' videos on YouTube and other sites that uploaders technically don't have the right to upload, or by savin' and linkin' to pictures on other sites without express permission/crediting the people who made 'em. In professional consumer junk, I do make it a point to buy all'a my music, games, movies, etc, but whatevs.

Well that varies on individual scales.

Why? The law does have limits to these things that're spelled out I'm sure. Owners of works have set ways they want people accessin' their stuff. How come individuals get to decide what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to related practices?

Watchin' a certain video can be wrong depending on the certain rights bestowed by the original publisher. Most of the time, if it's displayed on the internet and no copyrighted directly on the material, then people'll just take it, and really, I don't see why they should be punished for doing so.

Why not? What if the creator doesn't want people to upload videos of their products and has said so? The law says they can choose to state such a thing and enforce it, and what comes with violation of that law is punishment, right?

However, if the creator of a drawing/picture/what have you flat out states they don't want their material to be used however, then that's it.

Isn't settin' up specific distribution outlets flat out statin' how they want their material and products to be used and distributed?

The overall ordeal is quite flexible, and as long as it doesn't cross into the consumer market, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Why? How does it not cross inna the consumer market? Songs and film cost money, just like games do. And even if the creator puts their stuff up for free, shouldn't their desired distribution outlets be respected? Perhaps because they get ad revenue or userbase statistics/feedback through those outlets?

How is it not wrong to go against what the creator explicitly desired?

The justification, when not due to distribution, usually revolves around "It's not stealing, it's copying" or "I wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so the company doesn't lose money on my copy of it" or somethin' along those lines. Those're the aspects I take issue with, although not to the point that I'll preach about it or demand they stop their behavior. They can do whatever they want, and it doesn't get me pissy or nothin'.

I always compare this to stealing directly from the artist's wallet (when referring to the music side of the market), or even robbing a child. Saying this gives off a very "I do it cuz I can" attitude, which ordinarily is what drives people into jail. It's like if cops just went around shooting whomever they want because "they can". Not very fair, and someone ends up hurt; in this case it's the artist at hand.

Technically speakin', label artists don't make money off'a individual purchases of their songs or CDs, so technically, the artist isn't gettin' taken from, right? If you're so adamant about supportin' artists, then your best bet is to go to their concerts or to send them money directly.

Do you do that?

Not to say I get pissy about it, but I do have the occasional ">__>" moment when people talk about pirating like it's not a big issue and use the "millions of people do it, why can't I" excuse. Using the whole to justify a speck never sits well with me. Back to the stealin' candy from a baby--doin' it because you can get away with it doesn't justify the fact that you're stealing from someone who can't do anything about.

But even with millions doin' it, don't all the industries still continue to thrive? So is there really damage bein' done?

Isn't the latter part a culture issue? What if most people aren't aware that, say, watchin' a user-uploaded video of a song or movie clip technically isn't allowed by the owner? What if people grew up in an environment where they were not aware that it was against the law to sing Happy Birthday in public, that it's technically against the law to use a fake name online, or that it's technically against the law to sell spray cans and permanent markers to people under the age of eighteen in certain areas?

Granted, this applies more to unknowingly participatin' in related activity (like watchin' videos or listenin' to songs) and not so much outright downloadin' games from Pirate Bay.

As a whole, 's obviously a "wrong" thing to do, 'cause regardless of your feelin's on the corporation or the pricin' system or not havin' a demo or whatever, the owner/creator of the work has every right to decide how to distribute their stuff, and it ain't right to circumvent that for pretty much any reason.

What it comes down to.

But you've made exceptions, particularly for yourself.

Isn't that what everyone else does?

[Redhollowlives999]

Switching sides to hit every angle of the topic huh? Cuz, that's what it seems like. Fine, I'm just as flexible.

I meant this more so for people from other countries.

It all goes back to how necessary it is. If your country gives you a harder time, then it sounds like your view should lie elsewhere. Though that's a collective issue, really. Hard to speak for the bulk.

Why? Is it not still stealin' somethin' you legally don't have access to? Thought you were against the practice vehemently.

I think you're missin' somethin' here:

- The key word is I'm against it. I try my hardest not to do it, I don't expect others to forcibly follow in my footsteps.
- I don't think I'd use vehemently to describe my beliefs on this (at least, not any more cuz I stopped caring as hard awhile back).
- In continuation to the first thing, I have my own set of rules, but there are certain practices I tolerate when others do it. Like, I don't eat pork, but I wouldn't try to stop everyone around from eating pork forever unless it was of their own choice.
- The game I was referring to is about 2 decades old, give or take 4 or 5 years. I barely saw 1 in the market last time I checked (iunno how much has changed though). Articles I've read basically flat out state "it's a great game, not many out there, valued at: [...]". If you have 1,000,000 copies of said game, with 5 billion who want it, and especially when the game's no longer being produced or sold in any way, then to hold someone accountable for downloading it online is just tryna get inna that person's hair. I have access to all the old time junk (I still own some of it), and because I'm try to be pretty strict on my downloading of licensed software/files/what have you, I avoid it (though because I've already owned/purchased the game in question, I see no reason why I couldn't go and "make a copy". In this situation, in my set of rules for myself, because I've already owned it (but lost the original), I can use a copy (but I haven't because I don't see a reason to). My rule for others is in this situation is similar, but not as strict.

But the creators of those works did not intend for consumers to be able to access their work for free by downloadin' those ISOs, which you later agreed was the be-all end-all flat-line stance.

As I explained before, because I purchased it, and because usually the games I play are already sold with no remanufacturing in sight, should my original copy die, I find it perfectly acceptable to make a backup copy. It's my personal rule for myself that if I've already purchased the game and have done my job as the customer (and especially when my window of opportunity for buying another copy has left), I consider it fine to gather my own stuff online.

It's kinda how Emulators for the PS-systems (particularly the PS2 emulator) works. It won't work unless you put in the correct bios, and you can't get that without owning the system. (I'm not getting into nitty gritty illegal bios stuff cuz I'm pretty sure that's against the rules of the site.)

But what about all those people who swear that they do delete those pirated copies (such as yourself) and do go out and purchase legit copies of the pirated stuff they tested out and liked?

... I haven't tested anything out. At least, not that I know of. For music and videos, I look it up on YouTube.

If you're referring to how I used to pirate, that's because I blindly tried to fulfill my needs for instant gratification; not because I wanted a free trial.

I'm eh on the trial argument because that's probably got the most variety of alternatives out of all the others, honestly. And even when they do "promise", it usually (albeit not always) ends up like unzip programs like 7Winzip or whatever (I think we all know what we do after the 30 day trial). that's right i erased it

Sure, there're other outlets like videos and reviews, but those aren't objective or directly tied to the user's experience, like a pirated "demo" is. There's certainly a difference between watchin' some videos or readin' a couple'a peoples' reviews and experiencing somethin' like a game for yourself.

Of course, there are billions who prefer to do it themselves than to read an instruction manual. Honestly, if they can somehow balance this, I'm fine with whatever. I personally don't really dig it (though imma visual learner so I'm fine with a video).

Whether this is bad or not, my answer is yes. But for a different reason aside from the actual industry. To be blunt, a good reason would be aiding the hackers who take from the actual sellers.

If you take those shoes, the store loses a physical item that they could have potentially sold and already cost money to manufacture.

But takin' digital files doesn't technically remove a physical item with a limited quantity to sell 'cause you're just makin' a copy of the product.

But then the original loses it's worth, and eventually the original item usually stay on the shelves because everyone's hooked up with the copies. In theory it's fine if ONE person does it, but if everyone's doing it, then where's the profit for the store owner?

Think of inflation--reason not everyone can have 1 million dollars is because then the actual value of 1 million dollars will plummet to the ground.

You don't steal a shirt from the store, you just take a picture of the design and print it onna your own shirt for free, right?

Goes back to the originality and value. If it were that simple, then there'd be no point in the store tryna sell it cuz anyone can make it and there'd be no real profit. Store would close down and the person who's taking photos of things to make won't have anything else to take pictures of.

Just like you don't steal a Legaia game from the store shelf but instead you just download a copy of the game someone made without givin' money to the devs or publishers.

... But if you approach it from that angle, then what does buying a used game mean? You're paying someone who isn't involved directly with the production of the game right? Or what about finding it in the trash in decent conditions? Is that the same as stealing it because you didn't pay for it? Or what if the game was gifted to you? You're taking a copy from someone other than the original aren't you? What if they found that game in the trash?

You sure?

Majority of the people I've met, yes.

But you can't afford every song or TV show or movie that you listen to/watch online either, and I'm sure that you don't access all'a those things via the legal owner's mandated distribution services, unknowingly or not.

I probably could, considering I don't do that much browsing for music and TV shows online.

Unknowingly is okay in my book. Innocent sin, really--it's like committing a crime you didn't know existed.

But this falls under something completely different, cuz it's not just simple copying content, it's like instead of taking a picture of the shirt, you try it on while you're IN the store and walk around with it inside until you get bored and put it back.

But because the general intent of what you're saying is clear, I'll go along with it anyways (though imma be blunt about it):

What's the difference between watching, say, the Legend of Korra on THIS site vs THIS site?

It's a TELEVISION series isn't it? It wasn't the creator's intention for it to be online, but it is. The first link is taken from some random site (which took it from somewhere else), and the second one was taken from an official (aka, a legal) site approved by the original producers. ONE helps bring rating that help the show overall while still being free to the public. The other, while still being free, brings no REAL benefit to the show, and instead does the exact opposite by hurting it. A show like Korra needs RATINGS, and VIEWS to stay floating, and when you watch it on a non-affiliated site, it hurts the market as a whole because thousands of fans may say they love the show, but the weekly stats of how many people are actually watching the show says otherwise.

My point, I guess, is that TV shows and Movies get moneys from RATINGS and VIEWS (albeit movies also rely heavily on theaters and DVDs/Blu-Rays as well). If you can find a site that has LEGAL privileges post said product for free, then I don't see why you can't watch'em (there's a difference between steaming and saving, mind you--completely different topic). There are tons of affiliates that allow for you do things the legal way. In fact, Amazon offers the next episode about 12 hours ahead of the main site, so that's a nice method for people who wants to waste cash.

Also, to be honest, unless you actually look for'em, it's extremely hard to find illegal video sites. The industries on top of people with those, if they can find them. It's why YouTube doesn't allow for people to upload other's content without crediting the original creator (and to be honest I don't look past YouTube).

And as for the music thing, the general restriction with music isn't "you have to pay to listen", it's "you have to pay to own it". So watching music from the INDUSTRY allows you to listen to it online, but your rights as a consumer ends when you try to download it without paying.

and also the company producing said product gets some rights over the original creator's wish cuz legally binding contracts

But what about those who don't pay for the Internet themselves and also don't have income to pay for the songs either? They're not financially wonkin' up their priorities -- maybe they're just kids whose parents pay for their Internet and computer and other devices.

Ask mama and pops' permission to use their credit/debit card or get a job.

twerp

Why?

cuz

The law does have limits to these things that're spelled out I'm sure. Owners of works have set ways they want people accessin' their stuff. How come individuals get to decide what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to related practices?

If you baked the cake, you decide who eats it (iunno I pulled that right outta the two cheeks).

It's the same reason why YOU should get the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable in related practices, sorta. (sorry I turned away from this keyboard for a sec and I'm already confused).

Why not? What if the creator doesn't want people to upload videos of their products and has said so? The law says they can choose to state such a thing and enforce it, and what comes with violation of that law is punishment, right?

If they have said so, then that's what it comes down to. Anything without a reasonable excuse could easily be considered a violation of said law. Now what is reasonable (or what an excuse is for that matter) and what isn't isn't decided by me, so I can't really elaborate on that in a general sense.

Isn't settin' up specific distribution outlets flat out statin' how they want their material and products to be used and distributed?

Technically, yes. But only in very selective outlets, which they choose and actively distribute to--as in only the outlets they reach out to, not one someone completely unrelated to reaches towards. If I catch what you're saying right.

Why? How does it not cross inna the consumer market? Songs and film cost money, just like games do. And even if the creator puts their stuff up for free, shouldn't their desired distribution outlets be respected? Perhaps because they get ad revenue or userbase statistics/feedback through those outlets?


How is it not wrong to go against what the creator explicitly desired?

Because the industries' desires aren't so tightly locked up. It's been a whole lot more malleable than what I'm gathering from your question.

Technically speakin', label artists don't make money off'a individual purchases of their songs or CDs, so technically, the artist isn't gettin' taken from, right?

Oh, I know. That's not what I was going for. The artist don't make money directly from my pocket, but their paycheck DOES change depending on how much I spend (no matter how indirect it seems). If me and a buncha other SONEs, for example, keep payinga hefty amount of dough for dem noona tracks, and said income is relatively STABLE, then the likelihood of the gals getting paid a lot more increased. Likewise, if we suddenly stopped buying their music, their pay would decrease until evenetually the label stops funding new songs altogether. It's not a direct system, but it's like giving a father the money intended for the daughter/son. The father gives out the money in accordance to good conduct and hard work. I'm aight with that (though if I could pay them directly, that'd be nice too).


At least, that's how I think it works.

If you're so adamant about supportin' artists, then your best bet is to go to their concerts or to send them money directly.

I would if I knew their addresses.

Do you do that?

In the span between the time I've first heard one of the noonas's tracks until now, how many times have they had a concert in NYC?

Best believe imma pour my soul into going to a localized concert should one happen soon (maybe y u do dis jessica).

But even with millions doin' it, don't all the industries still continue to thrive? So is there really damage bein' done?

That's completely skewering it. To the grass in the circle of life, it may seem like the lion is the king cuz it eats what eats it, but nothin' bigger than anything else in the food chain.

That is to say, just because it may seem like they're striving to US, doesn't mean they are. For all we know, pirating may be responisble for a whole 50% loss in total net worth/income/other economic jargoon. Maybe they have more people stealin' and less people buying and they're surviving off the skin of their teeth. How much could it cost to constantly keep recording devices in decent conditions or how much could it cost to upgrade the systems to keep up with competitiors? How much could it cost to hire singers and producers? What about the actual maintance of, say, the building where everyone works? If the lights go out, then they can't record anything. It's a business's job to try to thrive as well as possible, and to give the appearance of a thriving business as to gather stocks and workers, but considering the fact that I've met more people that steal songs rather than buy them, that already gives me a poor image of the fiscal half of the music industry.

Isn't the latter part a culture issue? What if most people aren't aware that, say, watchin' a user-uploaded video of a song or movie clip technically isn't allowed by the owner? What if people grew up in an environment where they were not aware that it was against the law to sing Happy Birthday in public, that it's technically against the law to use a fake name online, or that it's technically against the law to sell spray cans and permanent markers to people under the age of eighteen in certain areas?

Then it's a cultural issue. The fix to that can only start from the individual. That can't be fixed when viewed from a general sense like that because it could still miss some heads.

Like I said, if the ignorance shows, then it's forgiven (that doesn't mean you shouldn't tell them certain things like who that belongs to and junk).

But you've made exceptions, particularly for yourself.

Isn't that what everyone else does?

Bruh everything has exceptions, and those "exceptions for myself" was me elaborating my view. Downloading a game I've already purchased == an exception for me. I consider it a general exception, but I recognize that not everyone thinks the same way as me.


Eh, this is a bit of a tangent, but:

I try doing what works best for me and what works best for the industry producing said product (without hurting either side). What a good chunk'ah people do is complete disregard the industries/other's point of view in general and just doing what benefits them, and that's what I don't agree with, and really that's what bothers me about pirating. Do what makes you happy as long as you don't negatively affect anyone else.