I call bullshit.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet.html
Scotty I'm with you one this one.
Quote from: ARTgames on July 28, 2010, 11:44:04 PM
Scotty I'm with you one this one.
Might want to double check the original poster again, bro. ;)
Lol... Nice one Art. I never believed the whole killing the media anyways. If we were killing media actors wouldn't have lamborghinis >.>
Damn skippy Art! I love to take all credit!
Not that I am supporting piracy, but In regards to music piracy at least, the only thing that would for sure be ruined are all the middle-men. There are plenty of means for the actual artists to survive nowadays even with tons of piracy.
Most musicians make money off selling merch and touring these days. I remember on the radio last week they were speaking about how concert attendence is down now, and spoke of The Who, Nickleback and Justin Beiber and Christina agulera or britney Spears, or some shit. I forget really. But the point is, it's all jank. It's not music people love and respect, and get into, it's just crap people may dance to, or hear on the radio. The concerts people go to are by real bands, bands people love and respect and really get into. Ones that put on a real show for people who listen to the music through the ages, not bands that are a passing fad. I know my favorite band, Coheed and Cambria, tours all the time and constantly sells out.
I know the ONLY place for me to buy music is Walmart, here in my small town. And frankly, they stock crap. They don't have what I want. I am forced to pirate.
I can't really bring myself to pirate music - or anything, for that matter. From my point of view, it's not really all that different from just stealing a CD from a store. You're just a lot less likely to be caught when you're pirating. And it's not like the already rich artists need any more money, and as Seifer said, they get a ton of it from concerts and merchandise. It just seems like if someone's going to put their time and effort into something that I'll enjoy, they ought to get a little financial compensation for that. The same thing goes for software, games, etc.
And, of course, I'm not suggesting that piracy is the end of the media industry. It's more of an ethics thing for me rather than a fear of the explosive, flaming halt of the concept of entertainment itself.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 12:29:10 PM
I can't really bring myself to pirate music - or anything, for that matter. From my point of view, it's not really all that different from just stealing a CD from a store. You're just a lot less likely to be caught when you're pirating. And it's not like the already rich artists need any more money, and as Seifer said, they get a ton of it from concerts and merchandise. It just seems like if someone's going to put their time and effort into something that I'll enjoy, they ought to get a little financial compensation for that. The same thing goes for software, games, etc.
And, of course, I'm not suggesting that piracy is the end of the media industry. It's more of an ethics thing for me rather than a fear of the explosive, flaming halt of the concept of entertainment itself.
In Canada its not considered stealing. Unlike in the states. :P But if I do happen to enjoy something that has been pirated I always buy it. Especially music.
I make sure to pirate all of my offline computer games and movies. As for music, for the most part I just listen to songs on youtube. If I want to update my iPod, I'll either borrow a CD from a friend (for the sake of sound quality), or pirate it like video games.
File-sharing is non-enforced in Canada, so there's no real reason not to, after all, I'll make better use of the money I save than the developers would if I gave it to them.
I'd also like to point out that pirating provides incentive for producers to keep the prices on media entertainment low, so they won't turn people off buying the product.
Quote from: Torch on July 29, 2010, 01:46:34 PM
I'd also like to point out that pirating provides incentive for producers to keep the prices on media entertainment low, so they won't turn people off buying the product.
No wonder PS3 games are so expensive. No hack for to allow the use of pirated games yet. xD
Quote from: Torch on July 29, 2010, 01:46:34 PMI'd also like to point out that pirating provides incentive for producers to keep the prices on media entertainment low, so they won't turn people off buying the product.
You really would think that... but it's not true. Piracy actually gives them an excuse (a lame one) to hike prices up. The argument is that they need to make up the lost revenue. But, in a lot of cases, the high price is the reason why someone will pirate instead of purchasing.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 12:29:10 PM
From my point of view, it's not really all that different from just stealing a CD from a store.
I've never agreed with that. I know most people will probably not accept my analogy, but I always say it's like walking into a store, making a duplicate copy of the product, and walking out with the duplicate. With digital piracy, there is no loss of product to the company selling the product. Whereas stealing something from a retail story, they're actually losing that product. So in the end, if I were to digitally "steal" something, if I never intended to purchase the product in the first place, the company has lost absolutely nothing. They have no lost merchandise, and no lost potential sale.
Of course, that assumes that the pirate was never going to purchase the product, which in a lot of cases is not true. A lot of times people would have purchased it, but because it's easy enough to pirate it, why would they spend the money? My argument only works for people (such as myself) who do not have the disposable income to spend on things like music or video games. And again, the counter to that is, "Well, then just wait until you have the money." Which is valid...
Quote from: Lingus on July 29, 2010, 04:48:36 PM
You really would think that... but it's not true. Piracy actually gives them an excuse (a lame one) to hike prices up. The argument is that they need to make up the lost revenue. But, in a lot of cases, the high price is the reason why someone will pirate instead of purchasing.
I just read an article that stated piracy rates are higher the cheaper the item is. 90% of iphone apps are pirated, most of them 2 dollars or less. So yeah, I would definitely agree with your statement.
Wait... I'm confused. Was your last sentence sarcastic?
In any case, that could be explained by how easy the item in question is to pirate.
Oh, I get what you're saying. You're saying it's not an incentive to keep their prices low since people pirate cheaper things more often. Got it. That wasn't what I was saying... but I guess both of us were disagreeing with Torch's statement in different ways.
Why would they pirate cheaper things over expensive things? I can't find the logic...
Like I said, it's easier to do. Think about how easy it is to download hundreds of music files versus how much more difficult it is to download a video game or software along with the crack and make sure the file as well as the crack works correctly. Small things like music and apps are a lot easier to download large quantities of very quickly, and if any of them don't work, you can quickly download more. Those smaller items are cheaper.
Quote from: Lingus on July 29, 2010, 07:18:46 PM
Wait... I'm confused. Was your last sentence sarcastic?
In any case, that could be explained by how easy the item in question is to pirate.
Oh, I get what you're saying. You're saying it's not an incentive to keep their prices low since people pirate cheaper things more often. Got it. That wasn't what I was saying... but I guess both of us were disagreeing with Torch's statement in different ways.
Sorry if it sounded sarcastic. I was agreeing with you that it would definitely make sense for them to heighten the price (despite the fact that we reached that conclusion by different means), considering people, for whatever reason, pirate cheaper stuff more often.
Well no. That's not what I was saying. My point was more that companies will use piracy in order to justify higher prices. But I believe that when they do that, they make it more likely for someone to pirate the product because it is too expensive. What I believe about your point, that people tend to pirate cheaper products more often, is that it is due to the fact that they are easier to pirate.
I have heard that when something is inexpensive, the perceived value is lower, and therefore people will justify pirating it. In other words, "If it's a 99 cent song, it's next to free, so pirating music isn't so bad." So there is probably some truth in that as well. But, there's a difference between that, and say lowering a video game from $60 (too expensive imo) to $30 (more reasonable imo). The more reasonable price makes it such that the perceived value is still significant enough to make people think twice about pirating, but inexpensive enough to be able to afford.
I guess what I'm saying is all of these statements we are throwing around probably depend on many different factors.
Quote from: Lingus
I've never agreed with that. I know most people will probably not accept my analogy, but I always say it's like walking into a store, making a duplicate copy of the product, and walking out with the duplicate. With digital piracy, there is no loss of product to the company selling the product. Whereas stealing something from a retail story, they're actually losing that product. So in the end, if I were to digitally "steal" something, if I never intended to purchase the product in the first place, the company has lost absolutely nothing. They have no lost merchandise, and no lost potential sale.
I used the CD store as an example. The reason a CD costs 10 bucks or more isn't because the disc is made out of a particularly expensive material or the CD case is made out luxury plastic. The packing and physical disc itself costs maybe around a dollar - but I've done no research, so don't hold that estimate to me. Even in the event that someone purchases music from a CD store and not an online resource, the music in question is limitless, as it can be copied endlessly without any charge. The CD is merely the rather cheap medium by which the music is distributed. Whether pirating or buying a digital product legitimately, through means of download or CD purchase, there is no danger of the product running out.
However, you do raise a good point nonetheless. It's definitely not the same as stealing something like an iPod, because it would cost more to create and distribute 100 iPods than 10, whereas with a music file it costs exactly the same to distribute 100,000 copies of the same song instead of 1.
I think of this as more or less of a golden rule sort of thing. If I'm going to put the effort into creating a game or album for the purpose of entertainment of others, and I decide that I want to charge people for it, then I would definitely prefer it if they would pay rather than pirate. In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Of course, I'm turning this into some giant ethics issue when it honestly isn't that big of a deal. Do it if you want to, I suppose, but this is just a small decision I've made about the way I want to live my life.
Quote from: Lingus on July 29, 2010, 08:38:38 PM
Well no. That's not what I was saying. My point was more that companies will use piracy in order to justify higher prices. But I believe that when they do that, they make it more likely for someone to pirate the product because it is too expensive. What I believe about your point, that people tend to pirate cheaper products more often, is that it is due to the fact that they are easier to pirate.
I have heard that when something is inexpensive, the perceived value is lower, and therefore people will justify pirating it. In other words, "If it's a 99 cent song, it's next to free, so pirating music isn't so bad." So there is probably some truth in that as well. But, there's a difference between that, and say lowering a video game from $60 (too expensive imo) to $30 (more reasonable imo). The more reasonable price makes it such that the perceived value is still significant enough to make people think twice about pirating, but inexpensive enough to be able to afford.
I guess what I'm saying is all of these statements we are throwing around probably depend on many different factors.
I gotcha now. It's really hard to say how consumers would react to something like dropping the price of a game without a detailed analysis of sales and piracy rates, because of, like you said, all the factors involved.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
Quote from: Chaos on July 29, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
Yeah, agreed, sadly I don't envision a future where that happens.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Lingus
I've never agreed with that. I know most people will probably not accept my analogy, but I always say it's like walking into a store, making a duplicate copy of the product, and walking out with the duplicate. With digital piracy, there is no loss of product to the company selling the product. Whereas stealing something from a retail story, they're actually losing that product. So in the end, if I were to digitally "steal" something, if I never intended to purchase the product in the first place, the company has lost absolutely nothing. They have no lost merchandise, and no lost potential sale.
I used the CD store as an example. The reason a CD costs 10 bucks or more isn't because the disc is made out of a particularly expensive material or the CD case is made out luxury plastic. The packing and physical disc itself costs maybe around a dollar - but I've done no research, so don't hold that estimate to me. Even in the event that someone purchases music from a CD store and not an online resource, the music in question is limitless, as it can be copied endlessly without any charge. The CD is merely the rather cheap medium by which the music is distributed. Whether pirating or buying a digital product legitimately, through means of download or CD purchase, there is no danger of the product running out.
However, you do raise a good point nonetheless. It's definitely not the same as stealing something like an iPod, because it would cost more to create and distribute 100 iPods than 10, whereas with a music file it costs exactly the same to distribute 100,000 copies of the same song instead of 1.
I think of this as more or less of a golden rule sort of thing. If I'm going to put the effort into creating a game or album for the purpose of entertainment of others, and I decide that I want to charge people for it, then I would definitely prefer it if they would pay rather than pirate. In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Of course, I'm turning this into some giant ethics issue when it honestly isn't that big of a deal. Do it if you want to, I suppose, but this is just a small decision I've made about the way I want to live my life.
Bands don't even make much off a CD either. The store takes a cut, the distributor, the producer etc etc etc. In the end, I bet the band gets maybe 10% of what a CD is sold for, if that.
Quote from: Chaos on July 29, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
A care for the rights of others (in this case, to receive compensation that they technically deserve) is what, I think we'd all say, spawns general human decency, benevolence, and charity in the first place. Our two views are hardly conflicting, though frankly I'm not sure if that was the intention or not.
Quote from: Chaos on July 29, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
Most people need a selfish incentive to do anything. That idealism is impractical.
Whether you think downloading stuff is fair or not under the us law you can still get int trouble for it, Keep that in mind.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: Lingus
I've never agreed with that. I know most people will probably not accept my analogy, but I always say it's like walking into a store, making a duplicate copy of the product, and walking out with the duplicate. With digital piracy, there is no loss of product to the company selling the product. Whereas stealing something from a retail story, they're actually losing that product. So in the end, if I were to digitally "steal" something, if I never intended to purchase the product in the first place, the company has lost absolutely nothing. They have no lost merchandise, and no lost potential sale.
I used the CD store as an example. The reason a CD costs 10 bucks or more isn't because the disc is made out of a particularly expensive material or the CD case is made out luxury plastic. The packing and physical disc itself costs maybe around a dollar - but I've done no research, so don't hold that estimate to me. Even in the event that someone purchases music from a CD store and not an online resource, the music in question is limitless, as it can be copied endlessly without any charge. The CD is merely the rather cheap medium by which the music is distributed. Whether pirating or buying a digital product legitimately, through means of download or CD purchase, there is no danger of the product running out.
However, you do raise a good point nonetheless. It's definitely not the same as stealing something like an iPod, because it would cost more to create and distribute 100 iPods than 10, whereas with a music file it costs exactly the same to distribute 100,000 copies of the same song instead of 1.
Actually, what you aren't considering in your first paragraph is distribution costs. Yes, the printing and packaging of the CD is minimal (there's also the printed material inserts, but again, minimal... it's much the same with video games except there's a bit more packaging, but you still pay a significant amount more for those...) What costs the most money I believe is shipping those CDs to distribution centers and retail stores. But either way, you dealt with the real issue in your second paragraph. The point I was making was that the item you steal from the store cost money to produce and is gone when it is stolen, whereas digital distribution costs nothing to produce. So the only thing the company loses from having digital copies stolen is lost potential revenue.
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
I think of this as more or less of a golden rule sort of thing. If I'm going to put the effort into creating a game or album for the purpose of entertainment of others, and I decide that I want to charge people for it, then I would definitely prefer it if they would pay rather than pirate. In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Of course, I'm turning this into some giant ethics issue when it honestly isn't that big of a deal. Do it if you want to, I suppose, but this is just a small decision I've made about the way I want to live my life.
I agree here... but the golden rule should work for everyone. I'm sure these companies wouldn't like to be price gouged from their vendors. What if the CD printing companies all decided to start charging $10 per CD to print? I'm sure they would raise hell.
Quote from: Jake on July 29, 2010, 09:59:44 PM
I gotcha now. It's really hard to say how consumers would react to something like dropping the price of a game without a detailed analysis of sales and piracy rates, because of, like you said, all the factors involved.
Yea, I totally agree with you. I'm just making assumptions. The people setting the prices probably know what they're doing... but who knows?
Quote from: Chaos on July 29, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
I like that you qualified this with "Morally". To be honest, in a practical sense, we'd probably be living in a much much worse world. Who would honestly choose to do some of the crap jobs there are in the world just because they enjoy it? The "helping others because they need it" part of your statement is all well and good, but in all practicality, there's some jobs that are utter shit to have to do, and the only reason people do them now is because they either can't get a different job, or because they get paid enough to do it. If everyone had the option to just do what they want and they were able to have the things they need such as shelter and food and clothing and entertainment, there'd be no trash pickup, no sewage workers, etc etc.
Unless people just did those things through a sense of duty to the society as a whole. I guess there'd have to be some kind of deal where everyone would do a crap job every so often and then get to switch out and do something they enjoy the rest of the time.
Your befit of doing a crap job it to have less crap around you. Like when you clean your house.
Quote from: Lingus on July 30, 2010, 01:08:37 PM
Quote from: Chaos on July 29, 2010, 10:49:40 PM
Quote from: LeGuy on July 29, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
In a realistic or practical sense this view is absurd, but morally I think if everyone held the same respect for others that they did for themselves we would be living in a lot better world.
Morally, I think if we eliminated money and did things for the joy of doing them and helping others because they need it, we would be living in a lot better world.
I like that you qualified this with "Morally". To be honest, in a practical sense, we'd probably be living in a much much worse world. Who would honestly choose to do some of the crap jobs there are in the world just because they enjoy it? The "helping others because they need it" part of your statement is all well and good, but in all practicality, there's some jobs that are utter shit to have to do, and the only reason people do them now is because they either can't get a different job, or because they get paid enough to do it. If everyone had the option to just do what they want and they were able to have the things they need such as shelter and food and clothing and entertainment, there'd be no trash pickup, no sewage workers, etc etc.
Unless people just did those things through a sense of duty to the society as a whole. I guess there'd have to be some kind of deal where everyone would do a crap job every so often and then get to switch out and do something they enjoy the rest of the time.
Robotics.
"WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!" :P
@Torch: That's only because society is raised to be selfish bastards.
@LeGuy: No, that wasn't in confliction with your statement, I was just playing off your words and sentence structure.
@Jake: Neither do I, because see reply to Torch. But it DEFINITELY won't happen if we don't even TRY to make make things better.
And who is going to do the crappy job of fighting the robots when they become self aware? HMM?
Quote from: Chaos on July 30, 2010, 01:48:56 PMRobotics.
"WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!" :P
Well, we're getting close. Not quite there yet... But maybe by the time robotics allows us to replace crap job workers with robots then our society will decide to work with one another. I doubt it though. More than likely everyone who used to do those jobs will just become homeless, and everyone who can afford to have robots will become ultra rich. Eventually, you'd just have a small elite upper class with their robot workers, and a massive swarm of lower class street people.
That's the world I want to live in... >.>
In a way it does kinda kill the media buisness, many bands depend on record labels to give them money for stuff, if their albums dont sell then the record company wont keep them on.
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I havent read through all the stuff. If it has then feel free to ignore me.
Quote from: Kbob32 on August 05, 2010, 01:58:25 AM
In a way it does kinda kill the media buisness, many bands depend on record labels to give them money for stuff, if their albums dont sell then the record company wont keep them on.
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I havent read through all the stuff. If it has then feel free to ignore me.
Actually, I believe it was mentioned that a lot of artists don't make their money on record sales. The record companies do. But you're right that if the albums don't sell the record companies won't sign. What this does though is puts the record companies in danger. The artists can continue to put their music out in any form they want, become popular and put on shows where they actually make the most money. So the artists are probably fine... Although, maybe the crappy artists are in danger who rely on their "studio" talent, become popular on the radio, and then put on massive shows that distract you from how crappy they actually are... but that's a good thing.
Quote from: Lingus on August 05, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: Kbob32 on August 05, 2010, 01:58:25 AM
In a way it does kinda kill the media buisness, many bands depend on record labels to give them money for stuff, if their albums dont sell then the record company wont keep them on.
Sorry if this has been mentioned but I havent read through all the stuff. If it has then feel free to ignore me.
Actually, I believe it was mentioned that a lot of artists don't make their money on record sales. The record companies do. But you're right that if the albums don't sell the record companies won't sign. What this does though is puts the record companies in danger. The artists can continue to put their music out in any form they want, become popular and put on shows where they actually make the most money. So the artists are probably fine... Although, maybe the crappy artists are in danger who rely on their "studio" talent, become popular on the radio, and then put on massive shows that distract you from how crappy they actually are... but that's a good thing.
Damn skippy.
I did have a reply to your last post, btw, Lingus, but I couldn't be arsed to type it all out.
Summarized Version: Yeah, that's only if we as individuals allow that to happen. Which probably would, considering how much the government LOVES sucking the big companies off. I've always said that, if someone invented a machine that could perfectly duplicate matter, how much you want to bet the companies would be fuming and wanting to regulate the shit out of it because "IT'S GOING TO COST US MONEY AND BUSINESS" cause people don't have to buy their product when they can just copy it. (Beginning to sound like a familiar situation?) Alternatively, we could NOT regulate the shit out of it, potentially do away with the entire monetary system, and have solved world hunger, and allow people to live much more comfortable lives with free and easy access to any resource they need. But, of course, that would require an entire societal change, and we know how evil THAT concept is, amirite?
But yeah, that's another reason I tend to support the ability to pirate. Suddenly, it's returning a lot of power back to the individual that the company REALLY doesn't want you to have. Suddenly, they can't get away with making a shitty, half-arsed product, and expecting it to make money. *COUGHSIMS3WORLDADVENTURESCOUGH* (srsly, wish I had pirated that, but I loved the Sim series too much at the time. Then I wouldn't have felt ripped off 30-40 dollars when I discovered the half-arsed, broken, buggy mess of code they threw into a box and shipped out. I can tell you right now, they didn't get the same love and trust from me when Sims 3 Ambitions came out, the wankers.)
Ah. Even the summarized version ended up not being very short. Ah well.
Yea, I mean, that was essentially my mindset when I posted that. It doesn't have to happen that way, but it probably would given what we know about society.
Interesting you should bring up duplicating matter... Think about 3D printers. (If you don't know what this is, it is basically a printer that uses different methods to "print" a physical object in 3 dimensions. So you can theoretically print an iPod.) When the technology gets to the point of being able to reproduce anything, including all of the electronics and all of that, you could have pirating of actual devices. All you would need is the file that holds the schematics, and you can print off as many copies of a device that you want, in your own home. That's going to get really tricky.
Quote from: Lingus on August 05, 2010, 08:14:43 PM
Yea, I mean, that was essentially my mindset when I posted that. It doesn't have to happen that way, but it probably would given what we know about society.
Interesting you should bring up duplicating matter... Think about 3D printers. (If you don't know what this is, it is basically a printer that uses different methods to "print" a physical object in 3 dimensions. So you can theoretically print an iPod.) When the technology gets to the point of being able to reproduce anything, including all of the electronics and all of that, you could have pirating of actual devices. All you would need is the file that holds the schematics, and you can print off as many copies of a device that you want, in your own home. That's going to get really tricky.
I read that somewhere, and although printing out 3d objects is definitely realistic, printing out real working devices doesn't sound plausible in the least bit. Wouldn't that require unlimited natural materials? There are parts, especially in electronics, that are more expensive simply because they're made out of rare natural materials. How are they gonna get around that one?
Quote from: Jake on August 06, 2010, 12:22:04 AM
Quote from: Lingus on August 05, 2010, 08:14:43 PM
Yea, I mean, that was essentially my mindset when I posted that. It doesn't have to happen that way, but it probably would given what we know about society.
Interesting you should bring up duplicating matter... Think about 3D printers. (If you don't know what this is, it is basically a printer that uses different methods to "print" a physical object in 3 dimensions. So you can theoretically print an iPod.) When the technology gets to the point of being able to reproduce anything, including all of the electronics and all of that, you could have pirating of actual devices. All you would need is the file that holds the schematics, and you can print off as many copies of a device that you want, in your own home. That's going to get really tricky.
I read that somewhere, and although printing out 3d objects is definitely realistic, printing out real working devices doesn't sound plausible in the least bit. Wouldn't that require unlimited natural materials? There are parts, especially in electronics, that are more expensive simply because they're made out of rare natural materials. How are they gonna get around that one?
15 years ago, 16MB of portable disk space was unheard of. Today (15 measly years later), I own a 2TB USB external hard-drive. Don't ask that kind of question, you never know.
Totally agree with Scott there. The rate at which technology advances is pretty staggering. And it's exponential, so it makes it even more crazy. I see what you're saying though Jake. In order to create something you need the raw materials required. Currently they're just making stuff composed entirely out of some kind of plastic like material. It's basically like a gel or powder I think, and then they use some method to harden it in a specific pattern, layer by layer. So the most complex you could make a machine would be using basic parts like gears and the like. Simple electronics wouldn't be too difficult once they figure out how to use more than one material at a time. They would just include some kind of conductive material. But you never know how far they could go with this.
Technology is advancing faster than "pretty staggering". I found this chart once as I was googling random stuff that showed the worlds technological advancements as far back as they can get. Basically what the chart showed was within the past 100 years, we have made more "amounts" of advancements technologically then the previous 200 or so years. So this is the fastest we have ever advanced in the worlds timeline.
Which is exactly what I meant by "exponential". We are progressing faster than the past, and in the future we will be progressing faster than we are now. This is Moore's Law.
Well it makes sense. We invent things to help us invent things quicker. On top of that our population increases giving us even more people to help invent things to help us invent things to make things faster. Although I've never actually heard of moore's law. lol
Quote from: Scotty on August 06, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
15 years ago, 16MB of portable disk space was unheard of. Today (15 measly years later), I own a 2TB USB external hard-drive. Don't ask that kind of question, you never know.
You're talking about a linear progression of technology that was bound to happen. Re-producing raw materials without scarcity is a whole different and MUCH more complex science. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it isn't plausible and won't be for some time to come.
Quote from: Jake on August 07, 2010, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Scotty on August 06, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
15 years ago, 16MB of portable disk space was unheard of. Today (15 measly years later), I own a 2TB USB external hard-drive. Don't ask that kind of question, you never know.
You're talking about a linear progression of technology that was bound to happen. Re-producing raw materials without scarcity is a whole different and MUCH more complex science. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it isn't plausible and won't be for some time to come.
I think the point was that, don't be so sure on the 'for some time to come' part.
Quote from: Chaos on August 07, 2010, 12:27:29 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 07, 2010, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Scotty on August 06, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
15 years ago, 16MB of portable disk space was unheard of. Today (15 measly years later), I own a 2TB USB external hard-drive. Don't ask that kind of question, you never know.
You're talking about a linear progression of technology that was bound to happen. Re-producing raw materials without scarcity is a whole different and MUCH more complex science. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it isn't plausible and won't be for some time to come.
I think the point was that, don't be so sure on the 'for some time to come' part.
I don't doubt our technological abilities, but do you understand what it would take to basically re-create an object with all the necessary and rare materials right from our own homes? The only way I see this working is if people could go to the store and buy packs of material that you install at home, which allow you to print schematics that you bought. Not only does this start to complicate things that aren't that complicated to begin with (aka, buying hardware from a manufacturer or store), but it would end up being a huge mother-!@#$ing waste of natural resources. To top that off, what company in their right minds wants to give the consumer control of the hardware? Don't tell me you don't see a huge, HUGE, problems with that.
Possible, but not even close to being plausible.
Well, with how small everything is getting, if things keep getting smaller it would be quite simple. xD Now, while getting the resources is impossible as you said, all that is *really* needed is one, a conductor and two, an insulator. While this is currently impractical, I could see 2 materials being invented specifically for this use, it is what would most likely be done first. The machine would have to have the ability to convert the insulator into different forms varying from soft to hard. So essentially society would have to eventually convert to all products being made of only 2 materials. Kind of like you see in Tron. Except thats a poor example of what I mean. But everything in Tron is either a glowy line, or a single colour. So it gets my 2 material point through. You could almost never have an object be cloned by a machine, that is improbable. But if you had say a "blue print" (pun intended) you can insert it into your material printer and it would read this blue print. Now while this is highly improbably for at home use do too cost. A company with access to this kind of technology could increase production rates probably by ten fold. I had a lot more for this running through my head but I can't seem to remember anymore.. (I have short term memory loss >.>) So if I remember anything else I'll continue on this strange idea of mine. xD
Just too add in my 2 cents, nothing is really being done to reduce it (at least not in Australia) faster and bigger internet is getting cheaper, it isn't being enforced, torrent sites are growing, pirating things is as easy as doing a Google search. In my opinion, if people cared that much they could be doing something about it.
Quote from: Jake on August 07, 2010, 01:56:33 AM
Quote from: Chaos on August 07, 2010, 12:27:29 AM
Quote from: Jake on August 07, 2010, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Scotty on August 06, 2010, 02:22:25 AM
15 years ago, 16MB of portable disk space was unheard of. Today (15 measly years later), I own a 2TB USB external hard-drive. Don't ask that kind of question, you never know.
You're talking about a linear progression of technology that was bound to happen. Re-producing raw materials without scarcity is a whole different and MUCH more complex science. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it isn't plausible and won't be for some time to come.
I think the point was that, don't be so sure on the 'for some time to come' part.
I don't doubt our technological abilities, but do you understand what it would take to basically re-create an object with all the necessary and rare materials right from our own homes? The only way I see this working is if people could go to the store and buy packs of material that you install at home, which allow you to print schematics that you bought. Not only does this start to complicate things that aren't that complicated to begin with (aka, buying hardware from a manufacturer or store), but it would end up being a huge mother-!@#$ing waste of natural resources. To top that off, what company in their right minds wants to give the consumer control of the hardware? Don't tell me you don't see a huge, HUGE, problems with that.
Possible, but not even close to being plausible.
Thinking too small, bro.
@Matty: That's just it; There's really nothing you CAN do, short of taking extremely drastic measures that would !@#$ up far more things than it would fix.
Quote from: Jake on August 07, 2010, 01:56:33 AMTo top that off, what company in their right minds wants to give the consumer control of the hardware? Don't tell me you don't see a huge, HUGE, problems with that.
That was actually my whole point in bringing this up. It would take digital piracy, and turn it into a problem where people can actually pirate physical products. You can bet the companies that make these products would have an issue with it.
Nah I don't think piracy will be the end of media industry. There are lots of people who make media and get payed with ads or merchandise or both. And piracy does not really effect them. For example a lot of internet shows work like this. Like Rev3 or Twit or AVGN and the list goes on like with you tube partnerships.
Now will traditional media I'm not sure but I think it will live. They will come up with a way to make us pay for it.