[ SECRET POST #2112 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2112 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #302.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That logic is...kind of stupid. It's like "hey, why don't I steal this shit from walmart? That company makes a fuckton of money anyway. maybe I'll take this iphone too, it's not like Apple is hurting for cash"

[(Anonymous)]

And somehow it doesn't hold up in a court of law.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

ikr, isn't that crazy??

[(Anonymous)]

Except if I steal shit from WalMart they have one less item in their inventory, but if I download something, they still have what I downloaded?

It's not a moral argument, but you can't actually equate the two arguments. It's not like stealing a car, sry2say.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

It's not exactly like stealing a car, but it's still theft.

Even if they technically still have what you downloaded because of the way copying works, you still didn't pay for something you were supposed to pay for.

Oh, and by the way, this is coming from another pirate.

Re: DA

[ill_omened]

It's theft oh?

Where's the permanent intent to deprive?

:3

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Where's the permanent intent to deprive in someone "borrowing" a car from someone without asking permission first?

There isn't always one, yet many people would still consider that to be theft.

(Yes, I know, the car analogy isn't the best example, but it's the closest one I can think of right now.)

Re: DA

[ill_omened]

That's TDA bro!

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Indeed it is, and I'm aware that in some countries, it is not considered to be theft from a legal standpoint. However, most people don't actually consider the car that one takes for a joyride or TDA/TWOC/etc. to be "borrowed", do they? No, most refer to it as "stolen", a word that is generally used in conjunction with THEFT.

[(Anonymous)]

True. Walmart would have one less item to sell. But if you share your pirated download with 30 of your friends online (and let's be real - everyone does) - then you've cost them 31 sales. And then your friends each share with their friends.

[(Anonymous)]

That's only if you assume that every friend would have bought the album if they hadn't downloaded it illegally. Newsflash: they wouldn't have.

(I'm not saying that makes illegal downloading okay, mind you, just that you're greatly overestimating the number of lost sales.)

[(Anonymous)]

If you find a thousand dollars on the street with a note attached that says "Property of John Smith", and you take it, whether or not you set out that morning intending to acquire a thousand dollars, you've stolen it.

[(Anonymous)]

How exactly is this comparison relevant? I never argued it wasn't theft. Your intent has nothing to do with estimating how much money (or potential sales) someone has lost. John Smith has lost a thousand dollars either way. It's much harder to estimate how much money a musical group has lost if 31 people downloaded their album.

[(Anonymous)]

That's 31 people who have no reason to spend money on the album now, plus however many people they send the file to.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Then if they wouldn't have bought it, they don't deserve to have it. Why should they have something they wouldn't pay for? They don't.

[(Anonymous)]

When did I say they deserved to have it? I was only talking about facts, without any moral judgement.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it actually deprives them of sales, though. If someone gives me a link or a cd they've burned I probably wouldn't have heard of the artist to begin with, so I wouldn't have been giving them money. If I could only get music by directly paying for it, I just wouldn't have that much music at all, especially the top 40s pop stuff. There is no loss of sale going on there at all.

[(Anonymous)]

There was an interesting study on this, and it's something that Neil Gaiman did a video on too; not sure how it correlates to music, but Gaiman found that the places where his books were being pirated were also the places where his sales were going up the most. Baen books frequently makes novels available for free on their website, and when they put a book up for free its sales go up rather than down.

I mean, no one pitches a fit about how libraries take money away from authors. I own a shitton of books, and I would have bought next to none of them if I hadn't read them at the library first. I have a lot of CDs I wouldn't have bought unless I heard them online first.

Just saying; it's not a 1:1 correlation.

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I had a coworker once who actually did pitch a fit about lost sales due to libraries, and how much income writers lose because people are reading for free and don't have to buy, and the libraries aren't obliged to pay royalties for each person who checks out the book, etc. It was ridiculous, and we all just sat there staring at her and then went onto something else.

[green_hellfish_of_doom]

your coworker does not seem to realize libraries get their books legally in the first place...

[(Anonymous)]

She wasn't arguing legality, she was arguing ethics. It was just still a stupid argument, IMO.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. All of the CDs I've bought recently were because I first heard the songs online, decided I liked them, and then went out and bought the CD. So they actually GAINED sales from me due to piracy.

[fadeinthewash]

I mean, no one pitches a fit about how libraries take money away from authors.

Libraries actually have a right to loan out books, though, and it's done in a certain way even for ebooks (1 book for 1 patron at time, and some extra fair use coverage for back-ups/archiving/accessibility). Pirates have no such thing. The end result is not the only thing under consideration, at least not for IP suits/wank.

eta: and of course libraries do help book sales, contrary to what many of the public--and even publishers themselves--like to believe, but obviously you know that. *covering my bases*

[(Anonymous)]

Tor has removed DRM from all their books for just that reason: they believe people lending out their books leads to more people buying their authors.

[(Anonymous)]

And some of those 31 people may but the CD and many more may become fans and buy tickets to see them live...

In all honestly, all the music I have bought the last six years was because I downloaded it first and loved it. And before that? I bought a CD only after listening several of its songs on the radio or when a friend shared it with me.

TL;DR: Even if some people who download music don't buy it, some other do. Downloads don't equal to lost sales.