It is not theft, it is copyright infringement, which some people view as adjacent to theft. The loss estimates are grossly inflated, but I do not think i tis right to assume that piracy incurs no...
It is not theft, it is copyright infringement, which some people view as adjacent to theft.
The loss estimates are grossly inflated, but I do not think i tis right to assume that piracy incurs no losses for the studios. There are lots of people who pirate content purely because it is free and would otherwise pay for it.
I have mixed feelings on the matter. On one hand, I believe piracy is necessary to drive innovation in the entertainment industry, and preserve old content that is otherwise not readily available. On the other, I believe artists (and the companies that bankroll their work) should be compensated for their products. I find the argument that piracy hurts nobody asinine, because if everybody pirated everything, the entire industry would vanish overnight, lots of people would be out of jobs, and the amount of new content being produced would slow to a trickle.
I remember two cases from about a decade ago where a college kid was sued for $675k and a woman was sued for $2 million. Tenenbaum ended up owing $675,000 and filed for bankruptcy in 2015, and...
If I had 2.7 exabytes of storage, could I wipe out their distributors—Warner Bros—annual operating income? Will I be prosecuted for billions in losses?
I remember two cases from about a decade ago where a college kid was sued for $675k and a woman was sued for $2 million. Tenenbaum ended up owing $675,000 and filed for bankruptcy in 2015, and Thomas-Rasset declared bankruptcy in 2013, owing $222,000.
The RIAA also suggested in its lawsuit with Limewire that every download be subject to damages which under law could have resulted in maximum damages of $150,000 per download, or a maximum of $75 trillion, which is more money than existed in the entire world at the time. They ended up settling for $105 million.
If we determine an act to be wrong, the ideal punishment is just harsh enough to discourage the criminal from doing it again. Or in some cases, just enough rehabilitation to achieve the same effect.
If we determine an act to be wrong, the ideal punishment is just harsh enough to discourage the criminal from doing it again. Or in some cases, just enough rehabilitation to achieve the same effect.
I think the bigger issue for claimed monetary losses is that these people were releasing before official release dates. It would be more like you distributing your perfect copy of Van Gogh before...
I think the bigger issue for claimed monetary losses is that these people were releasing before official release dates. It would be more like you distributing your perfect copy of Van Gogh before the museum that features it had a chance to have a grand opening, which might be considered the largest intake of funds that any art is going to receive. Even this is kind of a poor analogy, since it is actually the second grand opening, theater being the first and physical copies being the second.
As someone who pirates, rarely have I not gone to see something I really wanted to see in a theater because of piracy being available. In fact, I would argue that piracy has kept me closer to new movie releases and I have gone to more theatrical debuts since I started pirating. Same with pirating music, I don't go see too many bands I've never heard of before, but now that I've pirated and enjoyed the music I know to look for those bands if they are touring.
Youtube being more lax about music being posted, along with all the streaming services existing, has also made the need to pirate music at least go way down, although I'm guilty of still...
Youtube being more lax about music being posted, along with all the streaming services existing, has also made the need to pirate music at least go way down, although I'm guilty of still downloading bonus tracks from other versions of albums I own.
You're not purchasing a movie, you are purchasing access to it. If you sneak into a museum after-hours with your buds, that's a violation of agreement with the museum and they can boot you out and...
You're not purchasing a movie, you are purchasing access to it. If you sneak into a museum after-hours with your buds, that's a violation of agreement with the museum and they can boot you out and ban your ass. Movie studios make the argument that you letting people in to see the movie after-hours devalues the "art" they put money into, and have a lot of money to throw around, so they can really nail you to the wall.
TorrentFreak has made a few follow-up posts about this, including one today that looks at how much releases have dropped off: August 27 - SPARKS Piracy Busts: Facts, Rumors & Fear Point to...
TorrentFreak has made a few follow-up posts about this, including one today that looks at how much releases have dropped off:
It is not theft, it is copyright infringement, which some people view as adjacent to theft.
The loss estimates are grossly inflated, but I do not think i tis right to assume that piracy incurs no losses for the studios. There are lots of people who pirate content purely because it is free and would otherwise pay for it.
I have mixed feelings on the matter. On one hand, I believe piracy is necessary to drive innovation in the entertainment industry, and preserve old content that is otherwise not readily available. On the other, I believe artists (and the companies that bankroll their work) should be compensated for their products. I find the argument that piracy hurts nobody asinine, because if everybody pirated everything, the entire industry would vanish overnight, lots of people would be out of jobs, and the amount of new content being produced would slow to a trickle.
I remember two cases from about a decade ago where a college kid was sued for $675k and a woman was sued for $2 million. Tenenbaum ended up owing $675,000 and filed for bankruptcy in 2015, and Thomas-Rasset declared bankruptcy in 2013, owing $222,000.
The RIAA also suggested in its lawsuit with Limewire that every download be subject to damages which under law could have resulted in maximum damages of $150,000 per download, or a maximum of $75 trillion, which is more money than existed in the entire world at the time. They ended up settling for $105 million.
The problem is, there is some value to it, even if we can't realistically quantify it. So how should the legal system handle this?
If we determine an act to be wrong, the ideal punishment is just harsh enough to discourage the criminal from doing it again. Or in some cases, just enough rehabilitation to achieve the same effect.
I think the bigger issue for claimed monetary losses is that these people were releasing before official release dates. It would be more like you distributing your perfect copy of Van Gogh before the museum that features it had a chance to have a grand opening, which might be considered the largest intake of funds that any art is going to receive. Even this is kind of a poor analogy, since it is actually the second grand opening, theater being the first and physical copies being the second.
As someone who pirates, rarely have I not gone to see something I really wanted to see in a theater because of piracy being available. In fact, I would argue that piracy has kept me closer to new movie releases and I have gone to more theatrical debuts since I started pirating. Same with pirating music, I don't go see too many bands I've never heard of before, but now that I've pirated and enjoyed the music I know to look for those bands if they are touring.
Youtube being more lax about music being posted, along with all the streaming services existing, has also made the need to pirate music at least go way down, although I'm guilty of still downloading bonus tracks from other versions of albums I own.
You're not purchasing a movie, you are purchasing access to it. If you sneak into a museum after-hours with your buds, that's a violation of agreement with the museum and they can boot you out and ban your ass. Movie studios make the argument that you letting people in to see the movie after-hours devalues the "art" they put money into, and have a lot of money to throw around, so they can really nail you to the wall.
RIP. They will be missed. More victims in the artificial scarcity war.
Official US Department of Justice release: Acting U.S. Attorney Announces Federal Charges And International Operation To Dismantle Online Piracy Group
Man, that's a wild story. They should make a movie about it to recoup their losses.
Do you imagine it being widely pirated, in a continental case of irony?
TorrentFreak has made a few follow-up posts about this, including one today that looks at how much releases have dropped off: