http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/23/pirate-bay-co-founder-builds-device-that-costs-the-music-industry-10000000-a-day/
>dat clickbait title
>>52043871
HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS
I'd buy one. The concept is funny enough and I've been drinking so it seems like a good idea.
>and sends them all to /dev/null – a technical term meaning the files are deleted as soon as they are saved
>>52043871
They really need to get their shit together, how the fuck is a thief like this still on our streets?
SHUT IT DOWN GOYIM
Absolute madman
Damn they're gonna go out of business soon from all this lost revenue! The horror!
Damn son that's a lot of dough they loosing! Think of the people and their families!!
How will the industry survive with 12 KOPIMASHINs running?
I dont get it
can someone explain why its a problem that it downloads the same music automatically multiple times?
>>52045244
ha ha ha bless your soul
>>52043871
Fucking retarded
No one thinks the literal act of copying costs the music industry anything, but it DOES make them lose money by losing potential buyers.
If you're going to pirate, at least admit it's because you're stingy/poor
>>52045244
How can you be this retarded
>>52045244
The article is click bait, but for a good cause. The kopimashin is not actually costing the music industry anything. However, the music industry does claim that copying music (and movies/series/etc) harms them, and it is a form of stealing. If that is true, then by having a machine copy/paste/delete over and over, the industry would lose billions. In reality, they lose $0, because copying is not stealing.
>>52045421
>but it DOES make them lose money by losing potential buyers.
[citation needed]
>>52045421
>paying for anything
kek
>>52045463
http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/the-true-cost-of-sound-recording-piracy-to-the-us-economy
>>52045488
I don't. But at least I don't make bullshit excuses for myself
> he listens to proprietary music
>>52045456
The music industry is wrong to say its stealing but you pretty much have to show financial damages to progress in court proceedings, so I can't say I blame them. It's pretty ridiculous that such blatant copyright infringement is allowed online and no one seems to be doing much about it.
>>52043871
>equating piracy to theft
how long do they think they can keep this up?
>>52045463
needing citation for something like opinions.
But I also can state - in my opinion - that this is -for me - completely right. If there would be no way except buying it, I may buy 1 out of 5 things I want sometimes instead of just downloading it.
How can you guys be ok with robbing an entire industry? You like to think that copying music has no consequences, but there are literally thousands of people who aren't overpaid CEOs or rich musicians who work hard to deliver the best artistic talent to you as part of the music industry. You're stealing from them, many who make less money than you working everyday. Didn't your parents teach you basic morals?
>>52048107
It is not illegal if you can't stop me.
>>52048107
Hi. I'm one of those poor musicians. Record companies want my rights and most of the revenue. I pirate all my music. I support basic income and the destruction of all middle men.
>>52045421
> but it DOES make them lose money by losing potential buyers
Coming from that angle, should telling my friend not to buy an album/movie/game be illegal?
I'm making the publisher lose money, same as I would be (citation needed) if I gave him a copy of the product.
Should I go to jail for saying pop music is shit?
>>52048175
Good point. "Losses" from piracy should not be measured in "copies not purchased" or "copies downloaded illegally".
>>52048197
No, profit should be a right, not a privilege.
>>52048206
kek
>>52048148
>I dislike how an industry treats its employees
>Steal
Have you ever heard of a boycott?
>>52048148
>I support basic income and the destruction of all middle men.
B-but think of all the people that would lose their jobs! All because of your greed! Shut up and play yer guitar you dirty hippie, it's all you know anyway.
>>52048310
Copyright infringement is not theft. Why not call it murder while you're at it?
>>52045453
>Clearly missing the sarcasm
>>52048421
Consuming goods that you didn't pay for is theft, regardless of what mental gymnastics you have to perform to justify it.
>>52048481
>theft
If somebody steals my car, I can't drive my car anymore. If somebody downloads my car, we both can enjoy it. Where can I upload my car?
>>52048481
>listening is consuming
>>52048538
Again with the mental gymnastics. Analogies aren't necessary. Music, films, software, books, etc are all intellectual property. The owner of that intellectual property gets to decide how they want to distribute it, not you.
>>52048583
>>52048481
Theft is a bad thing.
Making a copy of a bitstream is not theft.
You can't call downloading a copyrighted mp3 theft when downloading a different file, say a different mp3 or maybe an OS without the copyright restriction, is not.
You CAN call it copyright infringement though. That's illegal, and people must justify (sometimes easily) breaking that law.
But no, it is not and never will be theft.
>>52048481
Consuming implies that the good is gone after you consumed it.
>>52048481
Then is it piracy if someone explains the story of a book to a friend?
>>52048310
yeah ima boycott the sony and the microsoft and intel, easy, #rekt capitalist pigs
>>52045523
>http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/the-true-cost-of-sound-recording-piracy-to-the-us-economy
But those 12.5 billion dollars doesn't just vanish because of piracy, someone who pirates video games probably spends those $60 on something else instead, say food.
>>52048624
>>52048633
>>52048644
Analogies are just convolution your understanding of the issue. If you can't afford content, then save up. If you don't think content is worth paying for then don't consume it in a way that circumvents the desires of the copyright holders. If you want to consume the content without paying for it, then steal it, but don't act like you're above a common shoplifter because your tools of theft are a keyboard and mouse.
>>52048583
>mental gymnastics
The concept of 'intellectual property'.
>>52048701
If you don't like IP laws then contact your state reps, vote, and be an influence for change within the bounds of the law. Or move to a country that doesn't have IP laws. Or just become a common crook, but don't try pretending to be Robin Hood just because you don't like laying for Japanese cartoons.
>>52048693
>don't consume it in a way that circumvents the desire of the copyright holders
This is exactly the crux of the argument. A law does not replace reality. It merely provides a mechanism for those with a granted power to enforce a desire over those without that power. In this case the law grants a holder of a copyright registration on a musical work the ability to restrict the commercial distribution of said work for a limited period of time, such that the registrant might find a way to make a profit enough to make more.
It does not restrict the public's ability to listen to that work, make personal copies of that work, or incorporate that work into private gatherings.
The argument in entirety from the industry is that global mass private copying is equivalent to commercial distribution which is granted as a unique power to the owner of the registration. Some people, and some governments disagree.
Calling it theft or stealing is a gross oversimplification of the actual issue, and is tantamount to propaganda created almost exclusively by Disney corporation.
>>52048693
>Analogies are just convolution your understanding of the issue
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why we should stop calling copyright infringement "theft" and unauthorised file sharing "piracy".
We are making this issue needlessly complicated by comparing digital goods to physical goods, which they're not. Copyright infringement is a crime but it's not theft. Unauthorised file sharing is a crime but it's not piracy. We need to leave these bad analogies behind to address the problems.
>>52048801
>The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
You're right, so unless you wait a minimum of 25 years you're breaking the law.
>>52048880
Correct, see >>52048836
Breaking a law is not the same as theft
>>52048880
>>The duration of copyright in these works is... life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on if you are Disney
I wonder at what point the retards will stop defending the lies companies that want to screw them over tell. Countless amounts of proof and statistics against them, and still they persist.
>>52048481
You didn't pay for the air you're breathing, thief.
>>52048374
>think of all the people that would lose their jobs!
I am thinking of them. Almost every job is a pointless waste of life: we can and should automate probably 75% of all jobs and provide universal basic income. Meanwhile, the few skills that can't be automated or eliminated will become the new upper class, rather than exploiting people to no end.
>>52048583
The owner is not in any way connected to the creator. Record companies are parasitic scum that have no reason to exist today.
No-one wants them and no-one needs them.
>>52045463
>[citation needed]
I don't buy music because I can easily pirate it. I used to buy music before I realized how easy it was to pirate. I taught my brother what to do as well, so he no longer buys music either.
So there's two potential buyers gone.
>>52049769
>The owner is not in any way connected to the creator
A very large number of people/small studios are publishing their own stuff online now.
inb4 you claim you never pirate independent works.
>>52049835
>publishing their own stuff online now.
>freely streamable
>name your price
>"omg u are piratin stahp"
>“I want to show the absurdity on the process of putting a value to a copy. The machine is made to be very blunt and open about the fact that it’s not a danger to any industry at all,” Sunde told Torrent Freak.
>>52045523
What rate are they using for piracy to lost sales?
Anyone who has taken a damn econ 101 class can tell you it's not 1:1.
>>52048175
False equivalency.
The difference is, when you copy a product for redistribution, you take away the producer's opportunity to earn revenue for that copy AND the consumer BENEFITS from whatever perceived value having that copied media bestows. Regardless of whether or not the consumer ends up enjoying said media, they still have the opportunity to consume it without cost.
When you advise someone against a bad purchase, assuming they don't just copy it themselves, yes the producer still loses out on the opportunity, but likewise the consumer loses out on the opportunity to consume that product.
>>52051659
So if anything, piracy is the economic equivalent of perpetual motion/something from nothing.
>>52048693
How about fuck you and I'll do what I want bitch. Enjoy my mental gymnastics.
>>52051659
So you're saying both scenarios are equally harmful to the companies, and we only make one of them illegal because it makes the world a better place?
>>52045421
I'd buy music if I had the money, but what makes it so easy to amass large amounts of shit I'll never listen to
>>52048107
It's literally harder to go through a convoluted storefront to purchase music than it is to just go on tpb or kat and click download
No bullshit drm either
>we all install scripts to download songs while PC is idle
>Music industry goes out of business
Why didn't we think of this earlier!?
>>52051659
Hey, what if I instead of buying keep listing to all their stuff on youtube with adblock?
and help all my friends do the same, while advicing them to never buy thier music?
You see how ridiculous this is.
If he saved the song in an RLE compression format with an 8TB hard drive he could store 2^(10^12) copies of the song.
>>52051949
Piracy is the violent attack on ships on the high seas. Copyright infringement is an infringement on copyright law. Please don't confuse them.
>>52045453
Merry Xmas to you too, you autistic faggit. You do know Xmas, right? Jesus' birthday? You understand birthday? If not, go ask your mom, or whoever your caregiver is, I'm too drunk to explain.
Also I apologize to both you and your mom. Next time I won't smoke so much crack before fucking a bitch, but in my defense I had no idea that the jizz would leak out of her asshole and into her pussy like that. I mean it happens, but what are the fucking odds?
>>52057680
What in the name of fuck are you blabbering about you black African non-white negro?
