I know he just did it. But it worked because he asked people not to steal and they didn't, or not many did. The point I'm making is that he still has to get paid for the media, if you distribute it yourself, it doesn't matter how much of the revenues you keep if everyone steals it, right? So why is it okay to steal music, books, etc., but not to steal from Louis CK? Are you suggesting we have a system where the consumer decides what to pay for and what they should get for free. Some people deserve to get paid and others don't? Each individual decides? Or are you saying that people are willing to pay as long as it goes directly to the artist and not some recording/production studio. It just seems odd that someone is willing to pay for some things but not for others when they both bring you a form of enjoyment. Why not just illegally download Louis CK's show and save the five bucks?
far more stole it than bought it. no he doesnt. he can make plenty doing standup and tv, both of which are promoted heavily by the free stuff. if everyone steals it it means you are really popular and it means you can do what louie did, which is insanely unprecedented, get a network show with total creative control. it is ok to steal from louie. its great. he makes money off of me because i subscribe to netflix and i watched his entire series and his standup specials. i pay for netflix. we already have that. yes, obviously yes. sounds pretty freeing eh? democratic, right? doesnt matter. if people want to pay, they do. i like louie. and maybe i will download it illegally. although technically i dunno if that is illegal. i know louie wont prosecute. i havent bothered to to download it at all, seems a hassle, maybe when it shows up on netflix i will watch it? i pay for that, for the convenience. i dont mind. i can also go out to eat and not leave a tip. i dont though, never, i leave massive tips. i dont have to leave a tip at all. dont need any laws to enforce it, do we?
What about lost income from loaning books? Movies? Music CD's? I mean, lost income was a premise of your debate.. Law aside, which is another one of your debates in which we are not talking about, what about lost income from sharing?
"The US, media corporations, and creative talent is losing billions of dollars from online piracy and something must be done about it. Pirate sites must be shut down an prosecuted. " ^ on the first page of the thread.. "Quote: martin said.... no they arent. Liar. Quote: -In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion. -From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks. -NPD reports that only 37 percent of music acquired by U.S. consumers in 2009 was paid for. -Frontier Economics recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $7 and $20 billion worth of digitally pirated recorded music. RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America Software Piracy at its height $59 Billion lost in 2010 Movie Piracy costs $6.1 Billion" On the second page. Talk about lost income from sharing...
this is the exact point that red will not discuss. when you ask about the morality of it, he refers you to the law. he knows they are not the same. income is lost from a loaned or shared file, regardless of whether the original file was paid for. and it makes no difference if the book is something tirk emailed me for my kindle illegally, or if he follows the proper procedure through amazon for book loaning (which they do have for some books on kindle). i would argue that sharing files increases the popularity of the creator, and therefore is better in the long run. like the most pirated files are all from artists that make plenty. like i stole a copy of a harry potter book once. i also bought all books and saw all 8 movies or whatever. i stole it so i could read it before it shipped. with all the movies and books, i guess i have paid maybe $200 (maybe 15 per book and 12 each movie) over the years to the franchse. and for the first time in a while recently i stole episodes of a tv show, downton abbey. then i also watched paid episodes of the show via amazon prime streaming on my kindle fire. streaming them was easier than stealing them. i also steal episodes of top gear from the bbc. these programs are paid for by the british public, i guess. i dunno where to get them in america. i bet i could find em somewhere and pay for them. but i wont, i dont care. i give the british folks my thanks for producing them. perhaps they should finance the episodes by getting sponsorships with the cars they drive. they can figure it out i am sure.
[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/79846477/The-Sky-is-Rising"]The Sky is Rising[/ame] entertainment revenues skyrocket even as piracy increases
I am employed because I do good work. You cannot steal from me personally because of copyright and patent laws. I will sue those who do. Why aren't you employed? An artist can choose to give his product away. But most artists must sell their work to make a living and you cannot steal from them just because you don't want to pay. Only in your little utopian world of milk and honey, elysian fields, and free lunch. Distribution models always evolve and are doing so now. But not copyright laws because online piracy deprives the creators as well as the distributors. Downloading from iTunes is cheaper than buying CD's because manufacturing has been cut out and online distribution is far cheaper than physical distribution. Retailers have been cut out as well. Yet the composers and artists get fairly paid for your 99-cent download. It is exactly the future of which you speak . . . minus the piracy of cheapskates.
Try to pay attention. Go back and read my responses to martin, who has already stated this about three times. It is called the principle of fair use. It says that copyrighted media cannot be duplicated, but that that sharing media is fair use. It has always been considered that books may be read by more than one person. This has never had an impact on book sales because fair use encourages libraries to buy books and libraries buy a lot of books. You are free to loan you books, DVDs, and CD's. But if you duplicate your copy and distribute it, you are a pirate.
I have discussed it ad nauseum on this thread and about a dozen others. You simply ignore me and keep revisiting the same issue over and over. I feel like I'm talking to a tree and I've had about enough of it. Either come up with something new or STFU.
Which is why I've pretty much stayed out of this conversation. For the record, I am the manager of a television station, so copyright is something I have to deal with on a regular basis. You have been dead-on correct with everything you've put forth in this thread. Martin, however, lives in a bubble of self-indulgence which supercedes another's right to profit from their work. There is no "right" in his world, there is only "me." There is no point in even attempting to debate that kind of mind-set.
