Quote:
Originally Posted by DamianJ
Come on Lloyd, think about it. All of the American media runs stories mentioning file sharing and explains how to do it, and you think the traffic goes down?
Pirate bay had 12 million more visitors because of the UK situation and publicity yesterday
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-e...g-tips-120502/ |
Torrent Freak, An unbiased balanced view.
They ban on and on about
"But, at the same time, innovating and providing solutions that people want do seem to work -- and create new opportunities for content creators and consumers alike."
Without offering anything else. Do they mean content producers, producing free content for piracy sites to earn by stealing it and selling advert space?
Maybe GG and Damian can offer some advice here.
And that's the issue. History has shown, time and time again, that infringement is a way for consumers to express that they're not satisfied with the official versions and have found "a superior alternative."
I think he means a "free alternative". Anyone can buy a legal download, join a site, buy a DVD, go to the cinema, buy a CD or program. So how is a pirated movie, game, music that's exactly the same "superior"?
With this distinction in mind, one might find it rather odd for Salam and Ruffini to insist that the solution to piracy is ?innovation? rather than law enforcement. By ?innovation,? they mean primarily that Hollywood should make it easier and cheaper for customers to buy their content digitally, citing studies indicating that when digital content becomes readily available through legal channels, piracy goes down. But even assuming Hollywood can discourage piracy by cutting prices and offering its content in different ways, since when do we tell crime victims to appease their tormenters?
And iTunes has stopped all music piracy?
I wonder if the companies slashing prices are also slashing profits, dividends and jobs? Maybe Hollywood and Microsoft should produce cheaper films and programs to sell cheaper.
I was wondering how far this guy could stick his head up his ass. He amazes me.
As far as I can tell, this is the craziest part of VerBruggen's argument. It is, effectively, "so what if everyone can be better off by innovating out of this mess, this is wrong wrong wrong!" As we've pointed out for years, if you have a solution where everyone is better off, there is no moral argument. It seems silly to be arguing what VerBruggen seems to be arguing, that it's more moral to have everyone worse off with no piracy, than to have everyone better off with some piracy. It just doesn't add up.
How does he come to the absurd conclusion of "where everyone is better off" because quite clearly he's lying or stupid. there are lots of losers.
Stopped reading there. It's obvious where Damian and GG get their bias towards fighting piracy from. They actually believe this garbage.