Digital Piracy Research

[vonRicht]

I'm astounded at the reaction here.

If the researcher is legit, then alienating them isn't helping the community and Suprbay is doing a disservice. If it's not legit then there is nothing to lose but there is a PR exercise to gain by engaging in a positive manner rather than get lost, we don't believe you.

I'm not.

This thread is Classic TPB behavior. Insulting and arrogant!

[connor17]

OP says he's impartial, objetive. That's a blatant lie. Stating that is not arrogance, it's the thuth. What's retarded is to say otherwise without any argument, at all.

From the "research":
Terminology to help you:
Digital Piracy - This is considered the downloading of material over the internet for free, this act is illegal.
Copyright Material - Property which is owned by an author, this is what the material which is downloaded illegally is called.

The term "digital piracy" is derogatory, tendentious, and shows what's the purpose from the beginning.
It's not illegal, in fact it's legal. The fact that filesharing is legal in most countries is not mentioned once, because that's an scenario to avoid.
Copyright holders are not the authors, that's a blatant lie. The owners are the copyright monopolies.

My first answer, ignored as all the rest, says that no one needs to do anything from scratch, but to search for already existing legalities regarding filesharing. If you do that, you'll immediately notice that the legal concept in which is based the legality of filesharing is data protection, privacy. If you look at the research, you wouldn't read anything related to privacy, being this concept the essence of the issue at hand.

If what should be a pivotal point is ignored, what are all those questions about?

From the research:
- Digital Piracy is a victimless crime. (But a crime nonetheless)
- Digital Piracy is more of a crime than shoplifting (You wouldn't download a dildo)
- If surveillance laws were stricter people would not participate in digital piracy. (Now you're talking motherfucker!!!)
etc, etc, etc

Obviously privacy is ignored, because that's the enemy to defeat. This is the important point of this thread.
All those questions are biased, their purpose is not to ask anything, but to argument against filesharing.

The result of that research will be "digital pirates think their crimes should be unpunished".

If we play this game, we will be used, our opinions distorted, and we will be shown as clueless criminals that don't know what they are talking about, and that must be straighten up with the force of the law.

Instead of that, we have to be conscious that privacy is the real deal, and not try to argument in the field they have made up, full of lies and misconceptions.
What happens when we play their game:
http://copyrightalliance.org/2016/01/sor...rd5_U8lup0
"The notion that a faceless group of Internet outlaws drives audience buzz – more than a creative team’s marketing campaign, advertising, and promotions – is patently absurd."
"It’s time for the claims that piracy is free advertising and good for creators to fade to black."

Hive-CM8 group apologies, and say something like "piracy is the new marketing". Of course, the're scorned, and rightly so. Because filesharing is not a new form of marketing, and thinking that way, they are falling in the enemy's trap, using their language, repeating their lies.

Because copyright monopolies are the marketing professionals, and the perfect proof of that is that they can come here, the piratebay forum, and throw upon us their bullshit, and a lot of people swalow it with a smile and ask for a second plate.

[Moe]

You wouldn't download a dildo

Don't tell me what I wouldn't do.

https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/8914634/The_3D_dildo

[᠎]

Human beings are social animals, literally.

Sharing is in our nature, literally.

Sharing stories, tunes, images, etc., whether the technology is words written on paper, word of mouth, charcoal on cave walls...or digital encodings, is natural. It is normal.

Imposing arbitrary restrictions on sharing is unnatural. It is an abnormal.

The onus should not be on the public to convince their elected officials why they should be allowed to share, it should be on business to convince the public why they should give up the right to do so.

They have not done that. They have not even tried because they know it is an absurd idea doomed to failure. Instead, they have bribed the elected officials (both directly and indirectly through "support" of election campaigns) to defraud the public of their natural rights.

[fwiw, I don't think the OP is a committed agent of evil, I think he's just a kid trying to get some input for a paper his professor will read nothing but the conclusion of, nobody else will read any of, and which won't make a blind bit of difference to anything either way. I also don't think he is knowingly biased. But Connor is correct--he has been brainwashed into thinking that sharing is something which needs justifying. That is completely wrong and no meaningful or useful answers will come from asking the wrong people the wrong questions.

Would-be monopolists should be asked why they shouldn't be lynched for throttling the supply of cultural goods, to the detriment of both artists and the public, for naught but their own financial gain.

So-called representatives of the people should be asked why they shouldn't be lynched for betraying the people they are supposed to serve for their own financial gain.]

[hypno-potamous]

Used to be:

1. Music was on records and you had to buy a record player and records.
2. Movies were at the theater and you had to go there and pay, else... the film was on film
3. Books were printed and one would have to buy it or get it from a library

Now all these media forms are digital because some hackers invented the technology to convert it. Now the various industrys want everyone to pay them for nothing. How about they produce something again that folks can buy like before and knock off the free ride they expect from the hackers that revolutionized the world.