Printable View
Aw, don't be sore at me ;) What other sorts of internet forums are there? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
That aside.. the point was it's unworkable - it's literally technically and politically a disaster in the making and so yes, a sweeping and generalised assertion like that is completely warranted. If you disagree, please counter - after all - it's a "discussion and debate" forum isn't it? :mrgreen:
The assertion is that no matter what the reasoning is behind the pirating act it lends itself to the distribution, creation and/or value of the item not being applicable for that group of people. The result is what was referenced, not why the result occurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 99Flake
That is the basis of thought in a supply and demand system... Profit can only be made when a commodity is scarce, it allows you to charge more than the cost of the item when selling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 99Flake
Now that music, video and games are not scarce customers want that reflected in lower prices but publishers want the opposite to maintain/improve their profit margins.
The question I ask is; "why pay more for something than it is worth?" Supply and demand is neutral and when applied to digital goods points towards them costing more than they are worth.
I don't hate anything to do with business... way too much effort involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by 99Flake
Piracy I understand and the thinking behind property I try to. I don't hate them, but I may disagree with some things regarding them.
I also feel that people do deserve to maintain the means to live, in our current system that can only be achieved through selling of goods or services. But where I think we differ is the necessity for some people to have 20x the means to live while others barely maintain their own livelihood. There is no need, nor logical reason, for people to have the means to waste resources for personal endearment while others suffer at the same time, specially when their job has little to no relation to society.
Piracy may not be morally acceptable, but is business any more morally acceptable?
I'm not sore at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by dangel
And I didn't say a sweeping generalisation was or wasn't warranted. I said that experience tells me I'd get picked up on it. This is because it happens regularly. As for whether I post more or less than is needed, it's simple really .... I post what I want to post. People can read it or not, but I do get irked when people tell me it's too long and that I shouldn't post it, as also happens regularly. Again, if people think it's too long, then don't read it. Working that out isn't exactly rocket science. But I get the hump when people tell me how to post, and they regularly do .... or try to anyway.
What you said was capable of being interpreted two ways .... one was that "it simply won't work, Period". On that, I agree. The other, which may not be what you meant and is why I'm not sore at you ... is "don't post all the extra crap when 'it won't work' would suffice".
Let me put it this way. I periodically get told variations of tl:dr. To that, my answer is simple .... don't read it then. Someone (don't remember who, as I have sigs turned off) even has (or had) it in their sig. Again, that doesn't bother me. But when people tell me to change my posting style because they don't like it .... well, they aren't required to like it, but telling me what I can and can't post is going to rub me up the wrong way.
People telling me they don't read my posts if they're too long is fine. People telling me not to post like that, as some have, isn't fine.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...dntreadlol.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Mr Hodgson..
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AxBvyEAebk...320/salute.jpg
I salute thee..
It's rather disheartening that people behave in this manner when they contribute to a discussion.
I do my best to ignore it as it's not worth the effort of thinking let alone coercing your thoughts into concise idea's about the inherent disregard for discussion.
I for one enjoy your posts Saracen and probably wouldn't visit these forums if it wasn't for yourself and others like you who are a joy to discuss with.
I don't normally go into piracy debates because we always end up in some kind of circles. Still, I have a little 20-30 minutes to spare.
Digital distribution may not be scarce but how about every other aspect of the business? Movies, games are not getting cheaper to make. The thought that distribution alone dictate a commodities' availability and value (ignoring the work behind, i.e. the intellectual property) is horrendously flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
Piracy wrecks havoc to supply and demand, especially for digital goods. The business is basically competing with an alternative supplier of it's own product. The problems are twofolds: 1. The company can not afford to sell the goods at the cost of distribution, because they have staff who worked full time for a living, in order to create the product. 2. This 'alternative supplier' only need to acquire -one- copy (not even necessarily via retail) plus the cost of distribution (and they do not even need to pay for every 'distributed copy', since this is spread amongst the pirates). The 'staff' here can afford to work for free, it's not a full time work (probably even a hobby to them) compared to creating the content in the first place.
To be honest, I do not have a problem with publishers wanting to maintain/improve their profit margins. Why should they be any different than any other business? The only difference is that for other business, the customers have the choice between paying and getting the goods or not buying and not getting the goods (the, IMO, fair concept of a willing buyer and willing seller), whereas here, they have a third option of not paying and obtain the goods leaving with the team that created the product with nothing.
So are you saying that music/movies/games are worth nothing? The artists, actors, directors, programmers, and indeed, the staff on the business side do not deserve even the minimum wage? By paying nothing, that would be the implication.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
Now of course, those people are getting paid (least the ones that are still around). But they are paid by the people who buy the product. Effectively, they do not feel that it is 'more than it is worth' although, at least some probably think that pirates are leeches to the system. The paying customers ensure not only that the business stay afloat, but that the pirates can continuously enjoy the free ride.
And to be honest CDs and DVDs may well be cheaper in real term (taking inflation into account).
What is morally unacceptable about an employer paying whatever sum he wishes to an employee (so long as it's within his mean)? We have the freedom to give whatever material possessions we possess, don't we (*excluding items that may require licence/other legal requirement)? And what is morally unacceptable about an exchange between a willing seller and a willing buyer? Or millions of willing buyers? And indeed, so what if the end result is the seller earning 20x or more than those who are barely making it? Is it their fault? Or the fault of those willing buyers? Would the world be a better place if all businesses function like charities?Quote:
Originally Posted by ExHail
I agree that people do deserve to maintain the means to live (* as long as they are honestly trying), but surely that is what welfare is for? And to be honest, the UK's welfare system is on the generous side of what I've seen in many places.
Even if we were to vilify businesses for wanting to make money - at least they still have to work for it. Perhaps there are particularly unscrupulous organisation (especially but perhaps not limited to illegal ones) that are far worse than pirates, but on average, I'd say you'd need to be pretty bad to sink lower from a moral perspective.