BF2S Forums Pirate Bay

Zimmer wrote:

Where did I say I download bands that i've never heard of prior to listening? Where did I say I download all the music I can find?
Please, point me to those posts, or comments, because I don't seem to recall ever saying that.

Oh, my fault I guess I assumed since you answered my question to jenspm post you shared his views.  So let's talk some more about yours from earlier... 

Zimmer wrote:

If it wasn't for the internet community, many bands wouldn't even exist, let alone make millions.

Newsflash.  These bands were making millions before the internet.  If a band wants to give away it's music  they put out a demo. 

Zimmer wrote:

]Do I feel for these bands that lose a few million a year because of pirating? No, I don't GIVE A FUCKING SHIT. Why? Because there are starving children out there, families with nothing and companies are suing people over some stupid music they downloaded because they are losing money?

Holy Shit we got a new ethical standard which now usurps laws.  It's now called 'Zimmies starving children act of 2009'.  From now all financial ethical questions will be judged whether there are starving children in the world'.  Genius.  Oh I'm betting all the money you are saving by not legally obtaining the music goes to feed the starving children?

Furthermore, who are you to determine how much money an individual can make?  Are you a socialist?

Zimmer wrote:

I download bands I've never heard of if I like their music - I get a taste of their music from last.fm or spotify - and if I really do like them and will give them more than a few listens, then I will purchase their album (for example, I have all the Counting Crows, Explosions in the Sky, God is An Astronaut, The Get Up Kids albums) but when it's for casual listening now and again ( like pop start like Lady GaGa and shit ) then I will not buy their album? Why? Because it isn't stealing. They make enough money by just being alive.

Judges and most of the Musicians tend to disagree with you on that.  But, hell what do they know -think of the children!

Zimmer wrote:

Where did I say that people will download music from a new band?

Are you drunk or something?

Zimmer wrote:

I download bands I've never heard of if I like their music - I get a taste of their music from last.fm or spotify

Ok....

Zimmer wrote:

Dude, you're reading shit that isn't there. I meant the opposite. People WILL support new and upcoming bands if they like them. How do you think they come about on torrent sites and shit anyway?

To 'Pirate'  Darrrrrr!

Zimmer wrote:

You still can't read. My example of Radiohead was perfectly justifiable. They chose to give it away, yet they got more money from it than if they had sold it as an item. People respect music and will pay what they think is necessary. If albums weren't as expensive as they are, then I'm pretty sure people would gladly pay for it, but when it comes down to buying the shit you get from iTunes, people will choose the better quality from an illegal download. Why? Because they will either pay a good price to get the physical CD or they will download it illegally. Buying MP3s off the internet is so pointless. If I am going to go to that extent, then I will pay the extra cash to buy the CD.

I understand that.  However, you fail comprehend that your example is invalid.  They are GIVING IT AWAY.  You don't need to go to a 'Pirate' site.

Zimmer wrote:

This can also be connected to DRM and games. EA games and all the other companies make a killing, yes? But they lose some of it through pirating, yes? Well when EA decided to go FULL BLOWN DRM and shit on all its gamers, the pirating of that game ( Spore, to be precise ) shot up by over 300%. Why? Because it wasn't a physical purchase anymore. It was a stupid CD that stopped working after the third install. So people told EA where to shove it and downloaded it illegally.

Prove it.

Zimmer wrote:

People want to be able to know that what they just bought is completely theirs and something they can touch. Otherwise, it's like buying love. It's pointless. So when it comes to paying £9.99 online for some shitty 256KBPS music, people will tell the companies where to shove it and download it illegally.

And then go to jail...

Is Newzbin next?

Zimmer wrote:

If it wasn't for the internet community, many bands wouldn't even exist, let alone make millions.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Newsflash.  These bands were making millions before the internet.  If a band wants to give away it's music  they put out a demo.

Oh dear. Thanks for backing up my point. Then why the fuck are they complaining about some pathetic loss of money? They have their millions of dollars, they have their millions of devoted fans ( oh, and many of them must have downloaded it illegally ) so they can go fuck off somewhere and stop complaining. If they can't feed their children ( geddit? ) then maybe there's a problem. Where do you think all the newer bands (Killers, Coldplay, etc ) got their huge followings from? Where do you think they get all the tour money from? Ah yes... People who downloaded their music illegally in the first place. So you see, they still make their millions from the THIEVING BASTARD PIRATES.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Holy Shit we got a new ethical standard which now usurps laws.  It's now called 'Zimmies starving children act of 2009'.  From now all financial ethical questions will be judged whether there are starving children in the world'.  Genius.  Oh I'm betting all the money you are saving by not legally obtaining the music goes to feed the starving children?

Furthermore, who are you to determine how much money an individual can make?  Are you a socialist?

Merely making an observation on the disgusting amounts of money they make. If they need more, they can go on tour again.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Judges and most of the Musicians tend to disagree with you on that.  But, hell what do they know -think of the children!

lol? Do I give a fuck about judges? They are political puppets, pressurised by the greedy copyright companies to extract every single penny from these pirates. Arrrrrr.
It's not the musicians who disagree, it's the record labels.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Are you drunk or something?

Me wrote:

People aren't dickish enough to screw over a new, sprouting band because they like their music.

Can you read?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I understand that.  However, you fail comprehend that your example is invalid.  They are GIVING IT AWAY.  You don't need to go to a 'Pirate' site.

What? Since when was this about going to a pirate site. I was telling you about the fact that people will respect music and pay for it what is deserved, be it on a pirate site or not....

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Prove it.

Google it.
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=9002
http://www.itbrief.co.nz/200809152555/d … frenzy.php
http://torrentfreak.com/spore-most-pira … rm-080913/

Need more?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

And then go to jail...

And what's your point? All this will do is fuel the pirates around the world to create something even more hard to catch ( actually, it's already in the making, and it's turning out to be very very powerful. ). So well done to the idiots that are the Swedish authorities. Welcome to the internet. Always one step ahead.
This was no criminal conviction, it was based on politics and bullshit.

@ Kmar : I very much doubt it. Newsgroups have been around since the very early age of the internet and have failed to pop up on the radar of "illegal activities" yet. The next move will be other torrent sites, eventually private trackers, then rapidshare/netload/etc and then finally Newsgroups.

So back in 2003 I was in seventh grade and shit. I didn't have internets back then but my friend did. He got a pirated copy of Command and Conquer Generals, I wanted to play it so he copied the CD's for me so I could.

I loved the game and have since bought every Command and Conquer game ever released, including Generals. So if I hadn't pirated Gens back in 2003 then I wouldn't be buying Command and Conquer games in 2008/9.

So EA has made like $150 because I pirated one of their games.

tl;dr, Piracy is the ultimate form of advertising.

DRM makes more pirates than it prevents. Customers get pissed because it creates issues for people who have legitimately purchased music. The pirates could give a shit.. they can crack it in a heartbeat.

Kmarion wrote:

Zimmer I say that because it's the exact same premise. This could be a sign of things to come. The fact that its been around for decades does nothing to ensure that the entertainment industry will not be emboldened by the success of this latest ruling. I'm fully aware of the history of newgroups. I've been using them for a good portion of it.

CameronPoe wrote:

wut@kmar

lol

You've downloaded 6Tb since 2005?

TBH Zim, Brinson seemed to be quite reasonable until you spazzed out and started shouting at him.

ghettoperson wrote:

TBH Zim, Brinson seemed to be quite reasonable until you spazzed out and started shouting at him.

To be honest Ghetto, I was being quite reasonable with him as well. Maybe my views are expressed a bit more hashly, but I wasn't the one going around shouting "You're a thief".

@ Panda : Well, if you don't know the means to do so,  then it doesn't count

ghettoperson wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Zimmer I say that because it's the exact same premise. This could be a sign of things to come. The fact that its been around for decades does nothing to ensure that the entertainment industry will not be emboldened by the success of this latest ruling. I'm fully aware of the history of newgroups. I've been using them for a good portion of it.

CameronPoe wrote:

wut@kmar

lol

You've downloaded 6Tb since 2005?

mafia996630 wrote:

We explore... and you call us criminals.  We seek
after knowledge... and you call us criminals.

For those who know....

Someone up for posting this guy's personal details on the Internet for those who want to "explore" what having the "knowledge" to steal identities is like? It's clearly okay.

i read that the political offspring of the piratebay, are now the 5 largest political party in sweden. and if they manage to get 4 percent they get a place in the EU parliament.

herrr_smity wrote:

i read that the political offspring of the piratebay, are now the 5 largest political party in sweden. and if they manage to get 4 percent they get a place in the EU parliament.

That would kick ass.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

My fascist ways?  Good lord... You were the one that has determined that corporations and individuals were making too much money?  I'm the fascist because I think people should respect copyright laws?  That's rich.
I really don't care if you find my opinion on this 'pathetic',  I kinda think that people who feel that they are obligated to free shit while other pay are pathetic - but hey what do I know, I'm a fascist.

Calling you a fascist is going too far.  I can see where you're coming from, but I think one of the major issues here is the inconsistency of intellectual property laws.  If you dig further into how they are applied, I think you'll find that corporations are much freer to "share" ideas and media than individuals are.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

It may be a tough pill to swallow, but people do think the way I do about this, hence the judges ruling.  Your slippery slope argument has zero merit here.

Well, it is worth considering that corporations have better lawyers than file sharing sites.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I agree.  The world is in shades of gray, however this issue is not.  People go to jail for less.  I know that internet isn't a dictatorship, but you need to understand that anarchy doesn't rule either.  Believe it or not, I haven't downloaded anything illegally, ever.  I'm not claiming to be Mr. Higer moral standard either.  But seriously if the shoe fits...  So tell me then, if it isn't stealing -then what do you call it?

Technically, it is stealing, but then again, if you record something from the radio on a cassette tape, that's technically stealing as well.  There was actually a big fight that broke out between recording studios and the makers of cassette technology when it first debuted because of this.  Another fight broke out between movie corporations and the videocassette market back when that first came out.

So, again...  Law is open to interpretation.