First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Pirating off the market Goods - Ethics
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

animegirl2222 wrote:

Japanese music isn't often sold in the U.S. I feel like the distributors understand just how many people pirate it internationally and usually don't give a rats ass about distributing it here. Japanese CDs are priced awfully and tax, if you're ordering it, from say CDjapan can cost more than the CD itself. I'm totally fine with that system, because I'm probably gonna keep downloading Japanese stuff illegally because of the lack of accessibility to 'Murcia. Not gonna lie. I don't want to, and I don't HAVE the money to shell out to buy all the music I want, so I pirate most of it since I need my money for other stuff, and I'm "greedy" and can't live without music. Tbh idc whether the money ends up in anyone's pockets, or if it's taken away. You see Taylor Swift acting like a whiny pissbaby because she can't sell enuff on spotify, yet she still makes billions, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for her.

Japanese music is costly. Last Acid Mothers Temple album I bought was like, $30 (new). Some go for even more than that used tho! $30 is the most I've paid.
I never download tho. It's like, if the albums you wanna buy are too expensive, just buy them less often.
But to be honest I do sometimes look up songs on YouTube, so I guess that's kinda unethical somehow it don't seem as bad as downloading to me. Like, I'm not trying to own a copy.
42349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
suffering
Offline
Posted 8/3/15 , edited 8/3/15

cleruninja wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:

Japanese music isn't often sold in the U.S. I feel like the distributors understand just how many people pirate it internationally and usually don't give a rats ass about distributing it here. Japanese CDs are priced awfully and tax, if you're ordering it, from say CDjapan can cost more than the CD itself. I'm totally fine with that system, because I'm probably gonna keep downloading Japanese stuff illegally because of the lack of accessibility to 'Murcia. Not gonna lie. I don't want to, and I don't HAVE the money to shell out to buy all the music I want, so I pirate most of it since I need my money for other stuff, and I'm "greedy" and can't live without music. Tbh idc whether the money ends up in anyone's pockets, or if it's taken away. You see Taylor Swift acting like a whiny pissbaby because she can't sell enuff on spotify, yet she still makes billions, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for her.

Japanese music is costly. Last Acid Mothers Temple album I bought was like, $30 (new). Some go for even more than that used tho! $30 is the most I've paid.
I never download tho. It's like, if the albums you wanna buy are too expensive, just buy them less often.
But to be honest I do sometimes look up songs on YouTube, so I guess that's kinda unethical somehow it don't seem as bad as downloading to me. Like, I'm not trying to own a copy.


The problem with finding Japanese stuff on YouTube is that two days after someone uploads it, the company often takes it down. Japanese companies think you're gonna pirate off YT videos, that's their mindset I'm guessing, so they'll take em down. They do the same thing with most anime uploads. It's a pity. Most of the stuff on YT is either a very shortened version of a PV or not there at all. Makes me fume a bit.

The Korean Pop industry, meanwhile, ain't testy at all, usually not even removing their artists releases that're Japanese from YouTube. They're like, HEY, HAVE ALL OUR MUSIC ON YT, meanwhile, we also actually sell our stuff to international fans digitally. Meanwhile the Japanese are like, HAHAHA, BUY OUR OVERPRICED CD DVD SETS FAGGIT, WE DON'T CARE IF YOU LIVE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY AND IMPORT TAXES ARE AWFULLY HIGH, BUY EET!

Japanese iTunes is also a nightmare because you have to change your store settings, buy a card online, for more than it's probably worth, the songs and albums are expensive as f, and you have to make up a JP address or you can't buy jack. It's like, that's more effort than it takes to torrent or pirate the thing. Wayyy more effort.

I literally have a jpop blog bookmarked that uploads stuff in m4a format for free, I ain't goin' to all that effort.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/15
I pirate a ton of music that's super rare and hard to find. I have no ethical qualms with it.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

cleruninja wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:

Japanese music isn't often sold in the U.S. I feel like the distributors understand just how many people pirate it internationally and usually don't give a rats ass about distributing it here. Japanese CDs are priced awfully and tax, if you're ordering it, from say CDjapan can cost more than the CD itself. I'm totally fine with that system, because I'm probably gonna keep downloading Japanese stuff illegally because of the lack of accessibility to 'Murcia. Not gonna lie. I don't want to, and I don't HAVE the money to shell out to buy all the music I want, so I pirate most of it since I need my money for other stuff, and I'm "greedy" and can't live without music. Tbh idc whether the money ends up in anyone's pockets, or if it's taken away. You see Taylor Swift acting like a whiny pissbaby because she can't sell enuff on spotify, yet she still makes billions, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for her.

Japanese music is costly. Last Acid Mothers Temple album I bought was like, $30 (new). Some go for even more than that used tho! $30 is the most I've paid.
I never download tho. It's like, if the albums you wanna buy are too expensive, just buy them less often.
But to be honest I do sometimes look up songs on YouTube, so I guess that's kinda unethical somehow it don't seem as bad as downloading to me. Like, I'm not trying to own a copy.


Dude $30 isnt that expensive if you buy vinyl.
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

animegirl2222 wrote:

The problem with finding Japanese stuff on YouTube is that two days after someone uploads it, the company often takes it down. Japanese companies think you're gonna pirate off YT videos, that's their mindset I'm guessing, so they'll take em down. They do the same thing with most anime uploads. It's a pity. Most of the stuff on YT is either a very shortened version of a PV or not there at all. Makes me fume a bit.

The Korean Pop industry, meanwhile, ain't testy at all, usually not even removing their artists releases that're Japanese from YouTube. They're like, HEY, HAVE ALL OUR MUSIC ON YT, meanwhile, we also actually sell our stuff to international fans digitally. Meanwhile the Japanese are like, HAHAHA, BUY OUR OVERPRICED CD DVD SETS FAGGIT, WE DON'T CARE IF YOU LIVE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY AND IMPORT TAXES ARE AWFULLY HIGH, BUY EET!

Japanese iTunes is also a nightmare because you have to change your store settings, buy a card online, for more than it's probably worth, the songs and albums are expensive as f, and you have to make up a JP address or you can't buy jack. It's like, that's more effort than it takes to torrent or pirate the thing. Wayyy more effort.

I literally have a jpop blog bookmarked that uploads stuff in m4a format for free, I ain't goin' to all that effort.

Ok, yeah, it is annoying how they remove anime. I found a terrible quality copy of Maison Ikkoku and started to watch it, and it got taken down after I'd only seen a few episdoes. I was gonna pay for it, but buying it on Amazon was like, $1000. So no.
42349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
suffering
Offline
Posted 8/3/15 , edited 8/3/15

cleruninja wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:

The problem with finding Japanese stuff on YouTube is that two days after someone uploads it, the company often takes it down. Japanese companies think you're gonna pirate off YT videos, that's their mindset I'm guessing, so they'll take em down. They do the same thing with most anime uploads. It's a pity. Most of the stuff on YT is either a very shortened version of a PV or not there at all. Makes me fume a bit.

The Korean Pop industry, meanwhile, ain't testy at all, usually not even removing their artists releases that're Japanese from YouTube. They're like, HEY, HAVE ALL OUR MUSIC ON YT, meanwhile, we also actually sell our stuff to international fans digitally. Meanwhile the Japanese are like, HAHAHA, BUY OUR OVERPRICED CD DVD SETS FAGGIT, WE DON'T CARE IF YOU LIVE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY AND IMPORT TAXES ARE AWFULLY HIGH, BUY EET!

Japanese iTunes is also a nightmare because you have to change your store settings, buy a card online, for more than it's probably worth, the songs and albums are expensive as f, and you have to make up a JP address or you can't buy jack. It's like, that's more effort than it takes to torrent or pirate the thing. Wayyy more effort.

I literally have a jpop blog bookmarked that uploads stuff in m4a format for free, I ain't goin' to all that effort.

Ok, yeah, it is annoying how they remove anime. I found a terrible quality copy of Maison Ikkoku and started to watch it, and it got taken down after I'd only seen a few episdoes. I was gonna pay for it, but buying it on Amazon was like, $1000. So no.


I saw a Durarara "deluxe" boxset on Amazon selling for upward of $400. Given, it was bluray, but for god's sake, that price? Is absurd. It wasn't even the Japanese release, either.
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

megahobbit wrote:

Dude $30 isnt that expensive if you buy vinyl.

I don't have the kind of ears hipsters do. In no way do I think vinyl sounds better than redbook. So I do not buy vinyl. I mean, if you got the space and money, they're cool for enjoying album artwork. But they're not for me.
xxJing 
40084 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Duckburg
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

cleruninja wrote:
Ok, yeah, it is annoying how they remove anime. I found a terrible quality copy of Maison Ikkoku and started to watch it, and it got taken down after I'd only seen a few episdoes. I was gonna pay for it, but buying it on Amazon was like, $1000. So no.


My original intention for this thread was actually inspired by a discussion on video game roms.

I noticed that a lot of people hate the idea of playing roms of retro games and ostracize people who do it. They won't play a translated rom of Mother 3 for example, they will wait to the grave for Nintendo to officially release it. They believe that you really shouldn't play a game unless you have an official copy, whether or not its hard as hell and expensive to find.

I believe that it is perfectly ethical on the other hand to play roms of retro games, if you cannot obtain a first hand copy. Meaning I don't think you have any social obligation to pay anyone to play a game that is not available first hand, as the primary intention of copyright laws are to encourage productivity. Buying second hand copies doesn't do that.

I also think that this is true for anime, books, any type of intellectual property. That if the copyright holder is currently not enforcing his/her copyright privileges, that you are not obligated to enforce them for him/her.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I do believe that it is unethical to on the other hand pirate something that is available first hand, no matter how ridiculous the price is. However I also really don't care about ethics in practice that's why I don't preach them. For the purpose of discussion, I am pretending that I do, because my argument is that even if I did, I wouldn't considering pirating off the market goods as unethical.
42349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
suffering
Offline
Posted 8/3/15 , edited 8/3/15
To kind of answer the intended question of this thread: No, I don't think it's unethical for people to do stuff like rom, especially for older games. It's extremely hard to find old game systems and stuff nowadays, I am lucky to still even have my old Game Boy Advance lying around, I haven't even bought a new Nintendo system in years, the last one I own is either the original Wii or the DSi, i can't remember which one came first. My GBA is from around 2002, it still works like my charm, but unfortunately my DS based systems have not fared so well, due to the fact that overtime cartridges, and the inside of the DS itself, get tarnished. The GBA, on the flipside, is sturdy as heck and still accepts games to this day. It's funny how overtime the systems have become more advanced, but somehow in some cases, more delicate and more susceptible to damage than their predecessors.
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

xxJing wrote:

My original intention for this thread was actually inspired by a discussion on video game roms.

I noticed that a lot of people hate the idea of playing roms of retro games and ostracize people who do it. They won't play a translated rom of Mother 3 for example, they will wait to the grave for Nintendo to officially release it. They believe that you really shouldn't play a game unless you have an official copy, whether or not its hard as hell and expensive to find.

I believe that it is perfectly ethical on the other hand to play roms of retro games, if you cannot obtain a first hand copy. Meaning I don't think you have any social obligation to pay anyone to play a game that is not available first hand, as the primary intention of copyright laws are to encourage productivity. Buying second hand copies doesn't do that.

Hmm, a grey area. Do you consider a digitally available game to be available first hand?
Cos to be honest, I really feel like emulation has hurt Nintendo big time.
The Wii/Wii U have awesome libraries of games. But most people think they don't.
"Virtual Console" titles bolster their lineup with lots of incredible quality games at a reasonable price.
But many people think those titles don't count. Like "who cares, I can download all those games for free and run them on any computer/phone/tablet whatever"
1483 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / California
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

xxJing wrote:


animegirl2222 wrote:

Japanese music isn't often sold in the U.S. I feel like the distributors understand just how many people pirate it internationally and usually don't give a rats ass about distributing it here. Japanese CDs are priced awfully and tax, if you're ordering it, from say CDjapan can cost more than the CD itself. I'm totally fine with that system, because I'm probably gonna keep downloading Japanese stuff illegally because of the lack of accessibility to 'Murcia. Not gonna lie. I don't want to, and I don't HAVE the money to shell out to buy all the music I want, so I pirate most of it since I need my money for other stuff, and I'm "greedy" and can't live without music. Tbh idc whether the money ends up in anyone's pockets, or if it's taken away. You see Taylor Swift acting like a whiny pissbaby because she can't sell enuff on spotify, yet she still makes billions, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for her.


That is actually not the type of pirating I am talking about. I do some of that type myself, but it is ethically wrong under the notion that it theoretically is a deterrent of creativity, regardless of how it actually affects those who would profit from it.

My example would be more in the sense of, let's say that one of Taylor Swift's songs became public domain, she wouldn't be able to profit from it anymore. The only people who would gain money would be those distributing it, for the sake of argument lets say buying a cd from some guy on Ebay. Do you think in that case that it is okay to pirate it for free? Or do you feel obligated to buy it from the guy on ebay?

In that case yes I would be fine pirating it because it would not be severely damaging the guy's status if I were to pirate it. For instance, if I pirate an indie game it would cause the devs to maybe go bankrupt or something but if I'm getting the meaning right the distributors got the cd for free and they're trying to make extra money off of it.

Basically the middle man in many US companies.

37091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/3/15
This is actually a multifaceted question, but I'll offer my thinking on but one angle for now.

There is to consider whether the copyright holder is not currently exercising their right because they have actually ceased to exist. A video game production company may technically hold the rights to a game from the early 1990s, but they can't exactly enforce their exclusive right to produce copies and strike down violators thereof if they went belly up by the mid-1990s. Presumably they'd have sold the rights to the property in order to settle whatever their costs for closing out their business may have been, but this doesn't always happen and properties have been known to fall into a sort of limbo until they're picked up again (if ever). Considering it isn't technically possible to violate the rights of a nonexistent entity one would think that violation of copyrights without holders is ethical, but there is perhaps a stronger argument than this to be made.

The entire purpose of copyrights is to grant rights holders a reasonable opportunity to extract profit from their works as a way to provide an incentive to continue producing works, and society is promised that it will stand to gain more works if it only surrenders the power to use and adapt them as it sees fit for a limited amount of time as they come out. It simply isn't possible for a rights holder which no longer exists to actually fulfill the purpose of a copyright, and so society loses its incentive to continue enforcing that copyright. The institution stops serving anyone since both the rights holder's ability to extract profit and society's prospect of further works from the rights holder are lost, but it continues to limit society's ability to make use of the works they have gotten. Under such circumstances copyright is no longer the grease that keeps the gears turning; it's a wedge which prevents them from turning. One might argue that given no one stands to gain anything from the right's continued enforcement, and further that everyone stands to lose out from its continued enforcement, the right ought to be considered forfeit if it cannot be successfully transferred during the holder's dissolution.
9541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

BlueOni wrote:

This is actually a multifaceted question, but I'll offer my thinking on but one angle for now.

There is to consider whether the copyright holder is not currently exercising their right because they have actually ceased to exist. A video game production company may technically hold the rights to a game from the early 1990s, but they can't exactly enforce their exclusive right to produce copies and strike down violators thereof if they went belly up by the mid-1990s. Presumably they'd have sold the rights to the property in order to settle whatever their costs for closing out their business may have been, but this doesn't always happen and properties have been known to fall into a sort of limbo until they're picked up again (if ever). Considering it isn't technically possible to violate the rights of a nonexistent entity one would think that violation of copyrights without holders is ethical, but there is perhaps a stronger argument than this to be made.

The entire purpose of copyrights is to grant rights holders a reasonable opportunity to extract profit from their works as a way to provide an incentive to continue producing works, and society is promised that it will stand to gain more works if it only surrenders the power to use and adapt them as it sees fit for a limited amount of time as they come out. It simply isn't possible for a rights holder which no longer exists to actually fulfill the purpose of a copyright, and so society loses its incentive to continue enforcing that copyright. The institution stops serving anyone since both the rights holder's ability to extract profit and society's prospect of further works from the rights holder are lost, but it continues to limit society's ability to make use of the works they have gotten. Under such circumstances copyright is no longer the grease that keeps the gears turning; it's a wedge which prevents them from turning. One might argue that given no one stands to gain anything from the right's continued enforcement, and further that everyone stands to lose out from its continued enforcement, the right ought to be considered forfeit if it cannot be successfully transferred during the holder's dissolution.


I dont know if I showed you this but you might find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz_CPzuwSk4
23694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 8/3/15
to go to redbox 8 miles away


or to search "*movie title* streaming"


hm

choices, choices..
37091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/3/15

megahobbit wrote:

I dont know if I showed you this but you might find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz_CPzuwSk4


This is my first time seeing it, and it's a pinch too lengthy for me to handle at the moment. I am interested, however, and thank you for the link.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.