They are 'shutting' Pirate Bay. Good or Bad?

[Svartalf]

If you walk into a bookshop and walk out again with a copy of The DaVinci Code without paying, it's theft. Same if you download a film from a torrent site. You've stolen it. Just because you can download it for nothing doesn't make it legal.

I fancy a new telly, I'm off to Comet to steal one....

If you download a copy of a work you'd never buy or otherwise acquire in a paying manner (no buying the book, no renting dvds or going to see it in theatres no nothing), then there is no loss and it's a victimless action.
Theft of physical goods is a different matter entirely, as those have an actual cost.
OTOH, I've sufficiently liked some of the stuff I've seen in pirated version that I ended up buying the DVD.

I don't think the distinction between physical and electronic goodsd holds. And you could always say, "Well. I never would have bought it, so you've lost no money". I could use that defence to steal some Frangelica from the off-licence, "Well, i would never pay for Frangelica, so you haven't lost anything..."

It does, particularly in cases when no lost sales can be argued. I know that I have received copies of pirated videos... that I'd never have watched had I not received them that way. In a way, I have been exposed to things that I'd have remained blissfully ignorant of otherwise (as in, never would have known of, or would have deliberately avoided because I'm not putting money on such things unless I'm certain of being satisfied), and that may later induce me to buy products related to those if I like them enough. Not only is there no lost sales, there's effective free advertisement.

and theft of goods that represent an initial cost and deprivation of said goods to original owner (the guy from whom you still that telly or bottle would have sold it to somebody else had you not taken it, whereas the guy my friends copy files from retains them)

[Robert_S]

If the record companies got together with the ISPs and added an option to just be able to download lots of music and films reasonably cheaply and conveniently in one flat monthly bill, then you'd see a drastic drop in illegal downloading. It might take some effort to get all the different parties coming together, but that would put a stop to it.

These silly old CEOs aren't interested in moving with the times. Like many capitalists, they have a deep sense of entitlement. They feel entitled to keep making money in a way that increasingly demands law enforcement. Fuck 'em. Let them work at McDonald's (where I don't eat very often so I'll never have to come in contact with their lazy bitchy carcasses.)

For the record, I rarely ever rent, buy or steal their tripe. I just hate that they whine and bitch and push internet censorship down a slippery slope. Fuck 'em.

[Animavore]

Perhaps film makers, particularly independent ones, should stream their films at a streaming quality with ads and if people like them they can pay for a download version at high, HDTV quality with a the added extras you get on blu-ray. It gets around the issue of people not willing to take a gamble and part with cash on something they may not like. If you buy a tv from Comet you get to look at it first. Inspect it. Compare it's quality and picture with other tvs competing for your cash. Why can't movies be the same?

[Clinton Huxley]

If you walk into a bookshop and walk out again with a copy of The DaVinci Code without paying, it's theft. Same if you download a film from a torrent site. You've stolen it. Just because you can download it for nothing doesn't make it legal.

I fancy a new telly, I'm off to Comet to steal one....

If you download a copy of a work you'd never buy or otherwise acquire in a paying manner (no buying the book, no renting dvds or going to see it in theatres no nothing), then there is no loss and it's a victimless action.
Theft of physical goods is a different matter entirely, as those have an actual cost.
OTOH, I've sufficiently liked some of the stuff I've seen in pirated version that I ended up buying the DVD.

I don't think the distinction between physical and electronic goodsd holds. And you could always say, "Well. I never would have bought it, so you've lost no money". I could use that defence to steal some Frangelica from the off-licence, "Well, i would never pay for Frangelica, so you haven't lost anything..."

It does, particularly in cases when no lost sales can be argued. I know that I have received copies of pirated videos... that I'd never have watched had I not received them that way. In a way, I have been exposed to things that I'd have remained blissfully ignorant of otherwise (as in, never would have known of, or would have deliberately avoided because I'm not putting money on such things unless I'm certain of being satisfied), and that may later induce me to buy products related to those if I like them enough. Not only is there no lost sales, there's effective free advertisement.

and theft of goods that represent an initial cost and deprivation of said goods to original owner (the guy from whom you still that telly or bottle would have sold it to somebody else had you not taken it, whereas the guy my friends copy files from retains them)

I still don't think the argument holds - you've still deprived the copyright holder of income. The rest looks like post-hoc justification to me.

[Clinton Huxley]

Perhaps film makers, particularly independent ones, should stream their films at a streaming quality with ads and if people like them they can pay for a download version at high, HDTV quality with a the added extras you get on blu-ray. It gets around the issue of people not willing to take a gamble and part with cash on something they may not like. If you buy a tv from Comet you get to look at it first. Inspect it. Compare it's quality and picture with other tvs competing for your cash. Why can't movies be the same?

That's kind of what I proposed above with ad-supported legal torrents.

[Svartalf]

I still don't think the argument holds - you've still deprived the copyright holder of income. The rest looks like post-hoc justification to me.

If the copyright holder prefers to lose business opportunities because less people will be exposed to the works and maybe tended to buy them in the official (and presumably better) format, sure. I'll just turn to other forms of entertainment, and he'll not get one more farthing from me.

and I deny that I deprived anybody of any due funds, as, in the absence of piratical doings, their works would not even have reached me, let alone engendered any cash flow.

[Rum]

Actually though forcing ISPs to block a site is a bit like shoving a stick in a river and calling it a dam. The model will clearly have to change one way or another.

[MrJonno]

These changes arent meant to stop piracy but if its makes the hassle too much for even a few % who might buy the product then its been worthwhile. The police can hardly stop pickpockets and muggings but thats not a reason not to have any (or that it would be worse without them)

[Hermit]

It is theft more or less.

As were my recordings to reel-to-reel and cassette tapes. Having acknowledged the illegality of it all, I reiterate: fuck the greedy cunts. And yes, if I get caught, prosecuted and penalised, I'll accept the consequences of my actions just like I would have copped it sweet had I been hauled over the coals for other illegal acts I engaged in in the past, like smoking pot and hash, eating magic mushrooms and swallowing microdots and tiles.

[MrJonno]

It is theft more or less.

As were my recordings to reel-to-reel and cassette tapes. Having acknowledged the illegality of it all, I reiterate: fuck the greedy cunts. And yes, if I get caught, prosecuted and penalised, I'll accept the consequences of my actions just like I would have copped it sweet had I been hauled over the coals for other illegal acts I engaged in in the past, like smoking pot and hash, eating magic mushrooms and swallowing microdots and tiles.

Thats one of the more honest replies I've seen on piracy.

I shall add my opinion on it, if I thought I could steal a brand new TV without any chance of ever getting caught then I would be going down the gym so I could manage to lift a 60 inch tv

[PsychoSerenity]

I still don't think the argument holds - you've still deprived the copyright holder of income. The rest looks like post-hoc justification to me.

But they don't, under a capitalist system, have any automatic right to income. You deprive them of income if you refuse to watch a movie that you think will be shit. That's not stealing. And they're constantly depriving each other of income as they compete for market share. The whole concept of copyrights and intellectual property has always seemed rather shaky to me.

[Pappa]

If you walk into a bookshop and walk out again with a copy of The DaVinci Code without paying, it's theft. Same if you download a film from a torrent site. You've stolen it. Just because you can download it for nothing doesn't make it legal.

I fancy a new telly, I'm off to Comet to steal one....

[Drewish]

Copyright laws were put in place to promote innovation. Now an idea is patented and controlled decades after it's become standard practice. The logistics of stopping online sharing is impossible. Honestly I buy songs, but then I also get sent them from people I know. I buy movies on DVD and go to the theater, but then I also watch movies at friend's places that they've pirated. People spend for the convenience. Pay 1 dollar for this song on iTunes or go searching for a torrent (knowing that unless it's a new release most of them will be dead), I'll just pay the dollar. See how that works? You can't use moral conditioning to stop it. People aren't that good, and the copyright laws make no sense (seriously why isn't Elvis in the public domain yet?), so even those concerned with doing the right thing won't respect the laws.

[klr]

There was a related thread on this a good while back:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3535

[Thumpalumpacus]

I haven't had any songs stolen, but I have had people sneak into gigs without paying the cover. I was flattered that they wanted to hear us enough to do that ... until that lost cover charge wasn't counted in our ticket minimum, and enough of those meant that we played for free.

I don't like illegal downloading. People in the production chain deserve to get paid, too. Artists who cannot support themselves on their art -- who must take on straight jobs because of illegal downloading -- are probably less productive, too.

Something about a goose and golden eggs comes to mind. A culture that values its artists will pay them.