Im all for free P2P sharing to a point. If a new filmaker comes along with his product, he should be able to make a living from it if people want to see it and deem it worthy of attention. I do not, however, endorse giving george lucas and co my hard earned money for an average piece o crud like Indy and the kingdom of the crystal pile of poo. Sure the special effects were shiney... but FX does not make a good movie.
At every turn we are threatened with the law, warned of viruses (when its the film companies etc that actually release the fakes onto torrent sites) and guilt tripped about the destruction of the industry.
Im worried about our diminishing rights, internet nutrality, restricted content and the lies that get spewed about internet speeds, with which we are all being conned by the communications industry on.
One example of the way we are mislead about DL speeds is this:
Im on a 10Mb connection... and I get a usual 100KB a sec DL speed, or about 250-500KBsec if its a good night. The Highest Iv ever had is 1.1MB a sec... and this was only once... so really Im paying every month for a service I got on ONE particular DL. Not even for a day. It was a 150 meg file for 3 mins... £26 a month for 3 mins of 10Mb service???
Does anyone else see this as misleading or are you happy to be told you pay for a higher speed than you actually get becausebservers, other people, not being close to the exchange etc. slows your connection.
So overall what are your views on P2P sharing, and the restriction of content on the internet?
meh i dont really use P2P, but its not that bad. Like all the actors and film directors, and popular singers are all milionairs, so im not sure we are going anything bad if we don't pay (already way too expensive) tickets or albulms. Just not do it too much.
nd popular singers are all milionairs, so im not sure we are going anything bad if we don't pay (already way too expensive)
since when is the wealth of someone defining whether an action is legal or immoral? it does not matter how rich someone is. the law applies to everyone.
and there is no such thing as too expensive tickets or albums. at least not objectively. if you do not want to pay the price, then do not buy it. every person has another value connected to a item and the market is finding the right price for tihngs. if everyone would feel like you do, then everyone would stop buying tickets, and the industry would react by lowering the prices.
since when is the wealth of someone defining whether an action is legal or immoral? it does not matter how rich someone is. the law applies to everyone.
Your right and the law should apply to everyone. My problem is that they charge high prices, maybe not in the "objective" sense, but if enough people buy their tickets at a higher price, then they charge a price that a large amount of ppl cannot afford. When you look at this "objectivly" from the other side it works like this...
Man A can afford the ticket. Man B cannot afford the ticket. Man C makes millions from Man A. Man A doesnt mind too much as he has enough money for other essentials. Man B does mind, because not only can he not afford some general entertainment, he struggles to pay for his bills and food, whilst probably working 40hrs a week on min wage. Man C laughs his arse off, cos he has millions.
The person who is the real evil here is Man D, who we dont even see. These are the publishers, the advitisers, the middle men. They make Billions.
I think this is destroying our world, and making ppl think the only available and correct path is to run over those less fortunate, after all, they should have got a better job right? They should have got education. If they did they could afford these things. Well it doesnt NEED to be this way.
I dont like downloading movies illigaly. I never seed (tho that is seen as a bad thing by the P2P community, and I understand why). If I could download these movies for money at a fraction of the price then I would. Most people who download do so because they havent the money to see all there is otherwise. And can you fault them for "wanting" all this stuff, what with all the advertising that we see. Regardless of what some think, none are immune to a constant barrage of advertising manipulation.
And please note... noone is going poor because of downloading, exept some unlucky budding young companies who are caught up in the P2P war.
the problem is, that you cannot just take everything you want only because you cannot afford it.
as you are saying ppl download moveis, music and stuff like that because they cannot buy everything they want to see. we live in a world where almost every good is rare, which it has a value for people. if a movie costs 20dollars, you have to pay it. you can watch some movies with your income, but you cannot see them all. its the same in every other aspect of live. cars are expensive to, though noone complains. and if people would start just taking every car they want, because they feel its too expensive they would be imprisoned.
Man B does mind, because not only can he not afford some general entertainment, he struggles to pay for his bills and food, whilst probably working 40hrs a week on min wage.
yeah trying to make p2p a saving beacon for all the underprivileged and making the movie industry responsible for the misery of the world, seems very far fetched. its not even an applying argument.
it does not matter how rich people become when they sell something. its the consumer who makes them rich, by being willing to pay. so i suggest you start being an example and boycott the movie industry
yeah trying to make p2p a saving beacon for all the underprivileged and making the movie industry responsible for the misery of the world, seems very far fetched.[quote]
Im not saying they are the cause of the worlds problems, but they certainly contribute. I think the worlds problems are caused by the middle men, who increase prices for everyone, on everything.
Prices on movies could certainly become more affordable for people, and the people making billions could certainly afford to make less. This isnt some dream, it could become real, and with statements like this
[quote]so i suggest you start being an example and boycott the movie industry
it may just happen. You are right, its time to boycott the film industry. And the games industry, and the toys industry. But would you join me in this? I alone cannot take on the might of the rich, who quite easily control the ebb and flow of resource, mortality and entertainment.
I do part of my bit by doing something illigal, by downloading. I dont pay, I dont distribute, I dont advertise willingly. I like to enjoy things in life, and am willing to give my money to the people who actually made the product.
So as the main argument of the thread shows, P2P is not damaging the industry. While I recognise people should be paid for their work, what I am doing in no way stops the millions from flowing.
Now if EVEYONE started downloading, we could bring the industry to its knees. They would be FORCED to put movies up for cheap to download.
of course people could make less profit. but who is going to decide how much profit is the right amount. we live in a free market economy. so the consumer decides what to buy and the producer what to produce and sell. the market price on a market is the equilibrium of the money a company wants to get, which cant be high enough and the amount a person is willing to pay which is always as low as possible. the two meet somewhere along the road.
Now if EVEYONE started downloading, we could bring the industry to its knees. They would be FORCED to put movies up for cheap to download.
well not necessarily. 1. the industry could focus more on live acts. you cannot subsidize a concert with a livestream on the internet. 2. they would start making downloading more difficult by inventing new systems to prevent people from ripping and distributing the products. 3. they would start to enforce the law and thus more and more people who just downloaded some movies would get into trouble.
another thing is, that you complain about the middle men. but these guys are being hired by the artists, who want their products being promoted. somehow most people are not so unhappy with this system as you make it look. and yes there might be an amount of people who cannot enjoy going to the cinema at all, but most people can at least once in a while.
why dont you complain about the high fees for golf courses. theres only a few people who can afford to play but maybe more people would like to. you cannot make everything as cheap as you want, because someone cannot afford it. it makes no sense at all. at least not in any society based on a free market.
Maybe, but thats because golf courses reach their capacity. Make a movie cost less to expand your market makes sense, make it that I can easily download it off a site because it costs a crapload may just be enough to make me care little about integrity. It doesn't sound lawful, but asking for some things to cost less makes sense. The movie industry is quite rich.
yeah sure you can ask for things to be cheaper. but who is going to be the person deciding which price is the right one? you? the governement? because no matter how much you lower the rice there will be always people complaining.
secondly i doubt that anyone of us knows the true profit range of the movie industry. sure we hear about the blockbuster and how much the earned with that, but you have to keep in mind that on every succesful movie there are 20,30,40 or 50 movies which flop.
yeah sure you can ask for things to be cheaper. but who is going to be the person deciding which price is the right one? you? the governement? because no matter how much you lower the rice there will be always people complaining.
This is only true to a point. We could certainly make things more accessable for people.
tbh the point of this thread is not to dicuss the morality of P2P illigal sharing, as we may as well discuss the morality of killing, its to discuss the fact that P2P is not hurting the industrys that are affected i.e. the music, film and software industry. I do believe it hurts the smaller fish, but the big fish are the ones that complain on one side, then spend millions to sell their product.
Im not saying not wrong to sell what you have made, but its downright hipocritical to blame P2P sharing and THEN rake in record profit.
@Fall0ut is about whether P2P is bad/immoral and killing pc gaming.
The fact is that P2P will always exist unless ISP start looking through what you download.
Look at Assassins Creed 2 in their quest to make it less piratable they make the game almost intolerable and unplayable. You require a continuous Internet connection otherwise it kick you off and you might loose your progress. Not to mention that 2 years from now they might take the servers off and you won't be able to play it. Most people want to buy the game then pirate it so they can play a non DRM version of the game while still contributing. But then Ubisoft might see this as a reason to withdraw from the PC. Either way it doesn't look good.
