[ SECRET POST #2330 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2330 ⌋

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.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 068 secrets from Secret Submission Post #333.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kallanda_lee]

If your logic is number of copies, then if you download it and then delete it, and are no longer in possession, it should be okay? The problem is people are still trying to use analog laws in a digital world.

[(Anonymous)]

NA No. The problem is if the item isn't free and you're expected to spend money to see it, then it's theft. You never paid to see it. It doesn't matter if you download it and delete it--you've seen it. A lot people after seeing something won't spend the money to buy a copy--they've seen it so why bother?

Piracy is theft--I can't see why people can't admit their thieves when the download something, watch it (even if they delete it after), and keep it, which is what usually happens ime when someone downloads something.

There I said it. I'm a thief. I'm a pirate. I've downloaded stuff, kept it or deleted it, and never bought a copy. Primarily it was before anime was so common--I used to trade/buy VHS fansubs b/c it was the only way to see much anime that appealed to me and Japanese videogame music (used to be $45-75 for vg soundtracks to import. Yeah, no, esp. for single discs). Why the hell can't you admit it?

Also, the library argument is useless. The library buys the item in question and it's usually/sometimes more expensive(for hardier binding, etc. also) than buying the item as a consumer to make up for those lost sales. If the item gets destroyed/ruined by a patron, they buy a new one of the item, thus spending more money on it. Items aren't donated to a library; the library buys them.

[(Anonymous)]

Because admitting to piracy is equivalent and good enough in my book and I don't owe it to you to hang myself any further so you can feel better about being a whiny loser.

[kallanda_lee]

If your buddy loans you a copy, you also never pay to see it.

Yes, the initial purchaser paid for it, but what is the real difference between being given an analog copy, or ripped digital copy? It really amounts to the same thing. The difference is purely psychological. Fact is person A paid for it, but person B,C an,D no longer did.

In both cases people might choose not to buy a copy anymore (or, actually be encouraged to buy one, because they want to own their own). That depends on the viewer, not the medium.

I do not see piracy as theft, because to me theft is actually taking something from a person. Is it illegal - yes. Am I therefore engaging in illegal activity - yes. Do I see it as on par with stealing a necklace - no.

You are still free to see it that way, but as I said downthread, to me it's much more akin to creating a replica of the original, like reverse engineering. Yup, under copyright laws that's still illegal, but it's not the same as taking the original (and in fact, this was pretty common in a lot of communist countries, still is in China up to a certain level).

Why is it so important to you people admit to something anyway?

Some of us simply feel that copyright laws as they are now have become outdated before they even good and well started. And before people start complaining about poor artists: it's actually pitiful how little revenue actually goes to the artist in this case. For writers it's 15 percent - if they're lucky. For musicians it's not much better. I honestly think there are and need to be better ways to support artists directly, instead of mostly just feeding publishers of production companies.

[(Anonymous)]

Look, basically what you're arguing over here is what, exactly, constitutes stealing?

To you it means "taking something that doesn't belong to you," and whether or not the owner is, in fact, deprived of anything or not is immaterial. To others, it means "unfairly depriving someone of something that is rightfully theirs." Your emphasis is on whether someone's getting something for nothing, which you deem to be unacceptable no matter the circumstances, and theirs is on whether someone is losing anything or not, which to them is the only moral consideration.

Put another way, you're standing on principle, aguing from abstract ideas of right and wrong, whereas your opponents are pragmatists for whom only the practical outcome is relevant. They are not going to concede your point because they're proceeding from an entirely different set of values than you are.

[(Anonymous)]

There are also different views on what exactly something being illegal means: does that automatically make it morally wrong, or does it just mean that you get into trouble if you're caught doing it?

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who conflates "it's illegal" with morality really isn't worth talking with though, to be entirely fair.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. You just have to look at the terrible things that have been legal and the innocuous things that have been illegal throughout history, and even now.

da

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen a lot of movies because one of my friends buys a DVD and then the rest of us go over to their place to watch it. So technically six or seven of us get to see movies without paying for them all the time. Are we stealing? The only person who has paid to see it is the one who bought the DVD.

[lothinielflowermaiden]

Actually, sometimes people donate books to the library, and the library either sells those books to finance programs, or sometimes if the books are in good enough condition, they put them into the collection. So, libraries do have some books that they didn't pay for. They also sometimes put donated DVDs into the collection because they can no longer afford to buy DVDs. So, what does that information do to your claim that the library argument is useless.

[(Anonymous)]

Items aren't donated to a library Actually, they often are.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

Items aren't donated to a library

Bullshit. I've walked into a library, handed over a bag of books niether I or my mother want, and didn't any money for them. If that is not a donation, then you have a fragging weird definition for "donation".