drathbun wrote:VVVZZZ wrote:Downloading can never cause somebody to lose money.
Yes, it does. Why is that so hard to understand?
I sell a product. You didn't buy it but downloaded it from some website instead. You might not have physically removed $20 from my bank account, but you took $20 of value from me without reimbursement.VVVZZZ wrote: Companies assume that the pirates are potential customers. What a silly assumption!
That does not change the fact that if you are NOT a customer, you have no right to my product. What an even sillier assumption!VVVZZZ wrote: If your sales encounter a sudden drop, then it might be time to attack the downloaders. Until then, continue to nurture your customer base.
At that point it is too late. If you do not vigorously defend your rights, then the courts will at a later date often decide that you were lax in your own legal obligations, and therefore were given tacit approval to the illegal downloading and sharing of your works.
VVVZZZ wrote: Because the supply is practically infinite.
The traditional rules of Capitalism do not apply on computers too well. Capitalism works best when there's a limited amount of something.
When all you need to do is create the product once, and the supply is infinite, that's the main reason why phpBB and Linux are able to do what they do for free.
vBulletin and Windows are in the same universe. A pile of 1s and 0s that can be duplicated forever more. It is only the power of the government that allows creating vBulletin and Windows to be financially rewarding, the natural rules of Capitalism are irrelevant there.
drathbun wrote:That does not change the fact that if you are NOT a customer, you have no right to my product. What an even sillier assumption!
When the supply has no major limit, it's natural for a product to be free (like tap water and fresh air and phpBB and Linux).
Drunky wrote: As I said there are some people who just DL something because they can. They would have never used the product otherwise. The company wouldn't lose money from these people because they never intended on paying in the first place.
It is only infinite because in the case of illegal downloading someone else has chosen to make it so. If I put out a music cd and decide that I want to limit the production to five copies for my friends, then any other copies of that production are illegal. Nobody else has the right to change that decision.
I've said this over and over in discussions like this: the fact that something is digital and therefore easy to copy does not minimize the effort taken to create the product in the first place
nor should it eliminate the right of the creator to decide what he or she wants to do with said product. If you take away my right to decide, that's stealing. No ism's there.
but it's like stealing a car because you never intended to pay for one yourself. The fact that building a car requires physical components and duplicating software does not doesn't excuse the difference, at least the way I see it. It isn't your choice whether to pay or not.
drathbun wrote:Drunky wrote:As I said there are some people who just DL something because they can. They would have never used the product otherwise. The company wouldn't lose money from these people because they never intended on paying in the first place.
Doesn't fly. If you never intend to pay for it, then you have to right to use the product. As I said in an earlier post in this topic, it's not your decision to make. You cannot decide to simply take a product because you don't want to pay it. While it might not physically reduce the amount of money in my bank account, you have removed something of value nonetheless.
I know the analogy is flawed (Darth Wong told me so years ago ) but it's like stealing a car because you never intended to pay for one yourself. The fact that building a car requires physical components and duplicating software does not doesn't excuse the difference, at least the way I see it. It isn't your choice whether to pay or not.
I'm waiting for someone to claim the "I'm a poor student and can't afford it" argument, that's one that hasn't popped back up in this discussion. Can't afford it? Go to Kinko's, they rent software by the hour. It's like renting a car for your prom... if it's important enough, you'll find the money.
I'm probably coming across as a serious jerk in this topic, but it's because I feel quite passionate about this subject. To me it is quite obvious that anyone (and I realize blanket statements are often dangerous) that downloads illegal content has never been a content creator themselves. I've worked for software companies. I have friends that are musicians. I am a photographer. All of these (software, music, pictures) are so easily downloaded and shared on the web that people assume it must be okay.
It's not. It's really that simple.
Drunky wrote: I never said they had the right to use it. I said the companies don't lose money.
geocator wrote:Drunky wrote:
I never said they had the right to use it. I said the companies don't lose money.
The certainly do. There are legal fees. There are salrays to pay individuals to deal with it, etc. Further, you would buy the software or music or whatever if you had no other choice. If you really wanted it you would find the money.
Drunky wrote: You misunderstood. They don't lose money from somebody downloading it. Show me one case of a download actually losing a company money. They may lose money from suing an individual but there is no way they could possibly lose money from a download.
VVVZZZ wrote: I'll give you my example:
In my whole life, I downloaded about 5000 songs. Out of that 5000, I would have only bought about 750 of them if buying a song was the only way to get a song.
That is about 4250 perfectly harmless downloads if I were American (all 5000 of them are perfectly good since I'm in Canada - the music industry gets money everytime I buy CD-Rs - which is why it's legal and all good).
If I ever moved to the United States, I would obediently chop up all my CD-Rs with music, delete all my MP3 files, delete Limewire, but only spend about $40 absolute maximum on music per month.
AdamR wrote:Techie-Micheal wrote:In the US, it is considered stealing. Possibly other places too.
Technically, so is popping in a VHS/DVD or using your DVR to record a show. Which is why I have no problem with people downloading TV shows. Movies and music are a completely different story.