I have never bought a movie and never will , i don't pirate them either

So rather than being enigmatic, explain how your technique works.

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

It isn't black and white is all I'm saying, and I think everyone is guilty of some form of piracy, but as humans we are good at justify things to ourselves, and in the same way we ignore the fact that we've not paid Mary Berry for taking a quick picture on our phone of that tasty cup-cake recipe from a friends book, (how does she lose out by that?) and see little wrong with it, a whole usually younger generation don't see the harm of downloading music they haven't paid for.

So using the same logic, I should ask my local cinema to allow me to watch films at off-peak times free of charge? They're going to show the films anyway so they will suffer absolutely no loss by not charging me at quiet times, provided I don't leave any litter behind, pee on the seats or stub cigs out on the carpet. Thanks for the tip!

Edited by deleted (Wed 22-Feb-17 11:10:28)

Nah, they don't have to allow you. All you need to do is sneak in when they aren't looking - and whether it is peak or off peak is irrelevant as long as there is a spare seat. After all, they aren't losing anything because you wouldn't have paid anyway...

Personally if I am not willing to pay for something then I likely would value my time above the thing as well. If I like a film enough to spend my time watching it then I will do so legally - streaming service (Netflix, Amazon, etc), DVD/BluRay, cinema, etc. To say a film is not worth enough to pay for it but worth enough to spend time watching it does not compute in my world.

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

It isn't that black and white. For a start if you find a wallet that is someones physical property still, its not the same thing, it's a silly analogy.

An extreme analogy, but not silly. Unless someone picks it up and either finds an (oviously the owner's) contact number or address inside it and lets them know, or alternatively takes it to the police, then the owner has lost it permanently. SO you do no harm by being the one of possibly many who simplay take it and enjoy.

Have you ever gone around to a friends house and watched a movie because they had it and you didn't, you wanted to watch it but wasn't so keen to that you wanted to fork out for the film yourself

No.

What about borrowing a movie from a friend or going around their house to listen to some music with them?

The first, no, but see no problem. The second, even less problem. Those are the silly analogies, and no copyright holder would dream of worrying about them.

What about having a meal with some friends and being so impressed with the food they copied out the recipe for you from the book?

One recipe. They could even give you the book. If you want twenty recipes they might suggest you buy a copy, or they might buy you one for Christmas. Another silly analogy.

... a whole usually younger generation don't see the harm of downloading music they haven't paid for.

That is the problem. If it is copyrighted and issued advert-free by a publishing house, the performer will receive royalties for each sale. Copied onto the internet and pirated they wont. Both the performers and the publishing house, at the limits, will go bankrupt. At best just give up. Where does that leave the whole generation of growing older kids?

Personally if I am not willing to pay for something then I likely would value my time above the thing as well. If I like a film enough to spend my time watching it then I will do so legally - streaming service (Netflix, Amazon, etc), DVD/BluRay, cinema, etc. To say a film is not worth enough to pay for it but worth enough to spend time watching it does not compute in my world.

There ya go, someone else has the skills to make my point far more succinctly than I. Thank you Ian.

In reply to a post by PhilipD:

Hi

The technology we are discussing here that allows piracy in this form, has also allowed hundreds of thousands of musicians to get their work out there on various platforms, and to make money from it, without the music companies that are so loudly complaining taking a large amount of commission from them.

Some progressive musicians positively allow and promote the sharing of their material in this way.

That is a completely different and now normal business model.

Covering self-promotion by freebies, which is merely a form of advertising that does cost them because they have provided something free just like a conventional advertiser, and also publication of the material on their own site which carries miscellaneous click-bait adverts for other things.

They do not do this for nothing. They do it to make money. You rip the music off that and upload it to a pirate site, or to your own advert-carrying site which becomes well-known for multi-artist freebies, and they stop making their living. Simples. Piracy can be applied to individual performers taking this route, just as it can to publishing houses.

You're welcome I get where you are coming from and fully agree.

I didnt mean it like that. What i meant was people download an album do so because they have no intention of paying for it. So if there was no illegal way to download they would do without

Im not justifiying it but people illegally download things they have no intention of paying for in the first place

I'm sorry but that is the same argument as stealing something physical. If I have no intention of paying for a CD in the local store then I just steal it? I know you argue that in the case of pirating nothing physical is stolen but why does that make any difference with that justification?

And how does it answer the fact that if it isn't worth paying for then surely it is not worth having? Or is it just that people think the price being charged is too high? In which case that price would be lower if everyone paid for what they used. That is a cyclical argument.

In the end someone's time went in to making the thing even if it isn't physical. If you consume it then you should be willing to pay for that person's time. If you aren't willing to pay then don't consume it.

PS - When I say "you" it is the proverbial you just aimed your way because you are the one putting forward the argument.

In reply to a post by ian72:

In the end someone's time went in to making the thing even if it isn't physical. If one consumes it then one should be willing to pay for that person's time. If one isn't willing to pay then don't consume it.

PS - When I say "you" it is the proverbial you just aimed your way because you are the one putting forward the argument.

Fixed that for you . The virtually complete removal from the language of that construct is definitely not a beneficial evolvement pf the language. It should be normal usage, not effectively banned as elitist.