Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on April 06, 2005, 08:55:43 PM
-
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050402-4767.html?28636
DVD profit margins double that of VHS
4/2/2005 1:12:51 PM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher
If you've ever wondered how the DVD market has worked out for the movie studios, we can now give you an idea. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, better known as MGM, has put a number of what appear to be slide presentations in a publicly accessible portion of their web server. The reports cover a number of business-related matters, including the company's impressive cash flow, information about their library holdings, and more.
The most interesting information details the strength of the DVD market. Between 2002 and 2003, MGM saw a 40% boost in DVD shipments in North America, and 53% increase worldwide. One slide shows just how quickly DVD has caught on: it took only five years for 30 million DVD players to be sold, compared to circa 8 years for CD players, and 10 years for PCs to reach that volume. All of this translates into a booming market, which helps explains the considerable profit margins attached to DVDs. This slide indicates that net profit margins on DVD sales are 50-60%, while the lingering VHS business sees 20-30% net profit. To put this into plain English, your average $20 DVD apparent costs around $9 to produce, advertise, distribute, etc., leaving about $11 on top as pure profit. For an industry supposedly under dire threat from piracy, things look pretty rosy.
This impressive profit margin at MGM may or may not reflect what's going on at other studios, but I think it's reasonable to say that it's roughly the same among the leaders. If I can beat one of my favorite dead hourses, this data lends credence to the argument that studios should provide simultaneous theatre and DVD releases. While theater revenues weighed in at US$9.4 billion in 2004, DVDs tipped the scales at $15 billion, and everyone expects it to increase. Furthermore, the theaters are currently engaged in price hikes to bolster revenues in the face of slightly dwindling audiences. Of course, I have to admit that there is some overlap between the two groups. Many are those who will both see a movie in the theater, only to buy it on DVD later. This need not preclude the possibility of simultaneous releases, however.
One thing is certain: these DVD numbers clearly show that people want to pay for compelling content. DVDs are superior to VHS in every way (save their oppressive encryption), they're roughly the same cost to produce as VHS is these days, but many people are willing to pay more.
For more information, you can basically browse through their directories and see all sorts of information, but if you don't want to snipe around, you can use the opendirviewer to browse any given directory. For instance, this will let you look at a presentation from 2004. You might want to look quickly, however. It's not clear if this information is meant to be public or not, although if it's not, it's odd that it's totally insecured.
(cont on the site)
-
Yup sounds like piracy is really hurting them....I hate it when people have huge amounts of money and ***** that someone is maybe taking 1 tenth of one percent of it..they probrably wouldn't even notice the difference if piracy stiopped all together....FIGHT THE POWER! RIP AND BURN!!
-
i love the idea of free information.
the only problem is what happens when there is no longer incentive to produce?
downloaded that free word processor that nuke suggested the other night.
seems there may be alternatives.
love open source.
love it.
-
It should be okay to steal if you steal only from someone who has just a whole lot of money.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It should be okay to steal if you steal only from someone who has just a whole lot of money.
Well someone who is so rich..that they won't notice:D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It should be okay to steal if you steal only from someone who has just a whole lot of money.
No it should not be ok to steal. But in addition media companys have no right to shut down products or technology that has viable legal uses. Nore should they shunt future technology for fears of piracy......at a time when they are making mega bucks and it isn't hurting them at all.
-
It should be okay to steal if you steal from only those with questionable ethics... who have just a whole lot of money.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It should be okay to steal if you steal from only those with questionable ethics... who have just a whole lot of money.
I really hope you don't feel that way, cause I sure dont.
No it should not be ok to steal. But in addition media companys have no right to shut down products or technology that has viable legal uses. Nore should they shunt future technology for fears of piracy......at a time when they are making mega bucks and it isn't hurting them at all.
-
Chris Lamptom
-
I can't say I go out and dog those that are keen on the whole piracy thing... Right up until they start trying to argue about how much someone deserves to have stuff stolen from them.
Nobody needs DvDs. Nobody needs software. It is beyond me why luxuries are somehow deemed entitlements and anyone evil enough to charge money for them deserves what they get.
-
...it aint steelin if you didn't take it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I can't say I go out and dog those that are keen on the whole piracy thing... Right up until they start trying to argue about how much someone deserves to have stuff stolen from them.
Nobody needs DvDs. Nobody needs software. It is beyond me why luxuries are somehow deemed entitlements and anyone evil enough to charge money for them deserves what they get.
but how do you feel on big corporations limiting technology because they are supposedly losing their bottom line? I keep hearing how much the entertainment industry has suffered from this but yet I read stuff like this and it makes me laugh.
They are Idiots. They should have embraced technology years ago and failed to act. They tried the same crap with the betamax/VCR and look how good that turned out for them.
Sure I'm not denying that people are stealing via P2P but the fact that these companys have acted so slowly to adapt and embrace that they have no right to complain.
I'm not justifying piracy I'm speaking out against the RIAA AND MPAA for wanting to sue inovative technology out of existance.
Why can't I have a card reader on my Tivo and store my recordings for later use or be able to watch them on another TV?????
Answer: because it MIGHT encourage piracy!
It's fricken dumb!
-
Well, the big music companies put no effort whatsoever into the digital music "revolution", in fact back in the days of MP2's they trashed it. The people said "we want to buy digital music", the same companies that make up the RIAA said "f**k off".
Then came along some businessmen to the music companies who said "we want to set up web sites and sell music digitally", and those big music companies said "f**k off".
So, everybody started "stealing" the music, downloading MP3s, because they couldn't buy the music the way the wanted (or at all in some cases). MP3 players grew and grew...
Then all of sudden the digital market, albeit illegal, was huge and massive, and now all those music companies want in on the technology and want to control the technology.
If a company behaves in a monopolistic and predatory manner, that prevents new services that the market is demanding, then this is what happens.
The members of the RIAA have nobody to blame but themselves. They tried to stiffle competition and innovation, and it backfired on them. Ha bloody ha... like the man says... rip & burn!
-
Piracy nothing, I want the people who make the stupid commercials/promos and anti-piracy crap on DVDs I rent go away. Just gimme the damn menu so I can hit PLAY.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
DVDs are superior to VHS in every way (save their oppressive encryption),
oppressive encryption?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
oppressive encryption?
Tronsky
I can only imagine they are referring to the region codes. Other than that, I dont know.
EDIT:
I just feel that if I buy a movie/CD I should be able to copy it all I want. Back in the early 90's I couldnt count how many times I baught the same album because it got scratched. As long as I'm not giving it away to somone else (illegal) than my copy should in fact be mine.
I think the RIAA is as corrupt as they come. All you have to do is look at how they treat radio stations that arent owned by clear channle.
-
What almost everyone has failed to realize is that we have been paying for the media (be it vinyl, tape or CDs) while what we actually wanted was the information. Until recently there was effectively no difference because there was no practical way of seperating the information from the medium it was on. Then along came video tape recorders and the movie industry tried to crush them, but luckily there were some sensible judges around the world who realised that people who had bought tapes had actually also bought the right to use the information contained on them for their own personal use. Somehow the movie industry survived. The emergence of cheap home computers and an affordable high bandwidth internet has totally freed us from the tyranny of the physical media: anyone can copy, download and upload any piece of information.
The industry has a right to be worried - their business model is like the fabled dinosaur: it's been killed but it's taking a while for the message to reach the brain. They need to find a new one quickly - or just get their tame politicos to change the law so they tie the information back to the medium it's on. It's like the horse breeders getting the government to ban mechanical engines.
The ultimate question we have to face is: are people willing to pay for just the information?
I suspect the answer is yes, but only with the proviso that they aren't willing to pay for the information plus a premium to support the old style media business. I think prices will have to come down to a level where most people are willing to pay rather than pirate (provided we don't end up living in police states where we need permission to look at and copy information we have purchased, of course).
-
RIAA and other independent record labels are infringing several national laws when they try to prohibit people from copying media to thier own use.
The labels were spoiled with analog medias because it forced everyone to continue buying copies again and again even though the license clearly states the buyer is buying a right to use a certain _immaterial_ product, not the media.
According to thier OWN declaration anyone who ever bought an elvis record (LP or CD) is entitled to purchase a fresh copy FOR THE SOLE PRICE OF A BLANK MEDIA. That is because the 'right to use' has been previously purchased.
They're therefore violating thier own licensing continuously.
It's like HTC would be selling boxed sets with subscriptions and force you to pay the boxed price even though you're subscribed but just lost the media.
-
Holden == Robin Hood!!!!
-
Remember the good ol days, when we recorded from the radio to cassette tape? Then make copies for our buddies? I wouldn't consider that piracy. It didn't hurt them then, and it does not seem to be hurting them now.
-
Hey... whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to sleep better at night.
Some people might comprehend the concept that if you don't like the prices a company charges or the company's buisness practices or the product they're selling then you would make it quite clear it's a product you are willing to do without. Stealing a product just legitimizes the company's practices and establishes the value of the product. Piracy is effectively empowering companies.
There is no excuse for piracy. If you're chosing to do it, you are the one that deserves what they get, not the company you are stealing from. It really is that simple.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Yup sounds like piracy is really hurting them....I hate it when people have huge amounts of money and ***** that someone is maybe taking 1 tenth of one percent of it..they probrably wouldn't even notice the difference if piracy stiopped all together....FIGHT THE POWER! RIP AND BURN!!
Hmm, and this coming from the same person who said it is ok for MS to be a monopoly as that is what free enterprise is all about.
Ever looked at the profit margins MS has?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I can't say I go out and dog those that are keen on the whole piracy thing... Right up until they start trying to argue about how much someone deserves to have stuff stolen from them.
Nobody needs DvDs. Nobody needs software. It is beyond me why luxuries are somehow deemed entitlements and anyone evil enough to charge money for them deserves what they get.
Well said.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hey... whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to sleep better at night.
Some people might comprehend the concept that if you don't like the prices a company charges or the company's buisness practices or the product they're selling then you would make it quite clear it's a product you are willing to do without. Stealing a product just legitimizes the company's practices and establishes the value of the product. Piracy is effectively empowering companies.
There is no excuse for piracy. If you're chosing to do it, you are the one that deserves what they get, not the company you are stealing from. It really is that simple.
Again, well said.
-
The quality of tunes and movies found on the net is not good enough for me so i'll leave them were they are. I have however dl music that i already own on my old LP's, because i dont have the equipment nor the patience to transefer them myself.
Movies are good @ the cinema, and if i love it enough to wanna keep it then i love it enought to get it in good quality on a dvd too.
I must confess tho that I have a pirated MS office cd around but I dont use it after i started using open office.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Holden == Robin Hood!!!!
Who says I'm giving anything to anybody? It should just be okay to steal if you only steal from those who are ethically challenged and rich. Especially if you only steal from faceless evil corporations.
Course if that's okay, then why do we hate Bernard Ebbers?
(http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/news/newsmakers/ebbers/ebbers_031505.03.jpg)
-
Maybe because he bankrupted the whole corporation, something that will never happen through p2p.
-
Sure... piracy sucks, but the sad part of it all is that the security measures are largely ineffective. Unfortunately, the consumers are the ones that end up paying for it in time, frustration, added costs, etc.
As an example, I just recently bought a DVD burner. I had no idea of the level of restrictions imposed on these devices compared to CD burners.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hmm, and this coming from the same person who said it is ok for MS to be a monopoly as that is what free enterprise is all about.
Ever looked at the profit margins MS has?
You will find I often contradict myself on some issues... ...but MS has "lost money" to me and probrably will continue to...how do you think I do my work on word and excel at home?
The contradiction often comes not from my REAL beliefs...but to see a debate continue.
-
I dont know if its because of piracy, but the PC corner in my local game store is getting smaller and smaller. And the games that are out there for the most part suck. I had more enjoyment on my C64 than I get from most of the PC games I have now. There are a few acceptions..AH being one of them, but that doesnt count, because its online, and it takes alot from an offline game to measure up to an online one.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It should be okay to steal if you steal only from someone who has just a whole lot of money.
It's a cartel, they are involved in price fixing and abusive practices towards retailers.
But thanks to their profit margins they can pay off our representatives to protect them.
As such, f__k them.
-
My vision is that games based on AI will lose thier appeal rapidly. MMOG is the way to go, nothing can replace the input of another human being.
-
or the satisfaction of them whining about you killing them.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
My vision is that games based on AI will lose thier appeal rapidly. MMOG is the way to go, nothing can replace the input of another human being.
Sometimes it is more comfortable to play against the AI... of cours depending on the game.
Against the human players you need to always keep more attention into the game.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
My vision is that games based on AI will lose thier appeal rapidly. MMOG is the way to go, nothing can replace the input of another human being.
You have to keep cheating in mind tho. Thats not a problem when playing against AI.
Im really impressed by the lack of cheating in AH, and I hope they manage to keep it free from it.
-
oohhh it would be nice if 80% of music, film industry would fall.....
Can you imagine that you will be save from 80% of all those silly adv. and BS ?
There will be place for proper art on radio again ...
-
You're right about the cheating part. It's death to MMOG business and it really should be outlawed.
-
you guys keep talking about piracy but to me that's just an excuse. I dont buy how some of you justify it. In that same breath I think that the industry should police their own. It shouldnt be technology makers job to make sure that their products are being used for legitimit purposes.
If a kidnapper uses duct tape to restrain a victim the victem doesnt sue 3M for making a good product.
This is scary that a mega huge industry with a bunch of lawyers might succeed in shaping the way technology evolves for the future. If these guys had their way we would have NEVER had the VCR or at least never an easy to use version. I could care less if they kill themselves through bad business practices but they are over stepping their bounds here.
-
They already tried to mess up dvd by setting region codes. Fortunately most players can be hacked to bypass it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
This is scary that a mega huge industry with a bunch of lawyers might succeed in shaping the way technology evolves for the future. If these guys had their way we would have NEVER had the VCR or at least never an easy to use version. I could care less if they kill themselves through bad business practices but they are over stepping their bounds here.
Thats what you get when theres always the old type guys in the board, who are always afraid of new technology and doesn't know how to adapt into it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hmm, and this coming from the same person who said it is ok for MS to be a monopoly as that is what free enterprise is all about.
Ever looked at the profit margins MS has?
No kidding, if MS were a phone company they would have been broken up a long time ago
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Hey... whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to sleep better at night.
Some people might comprehend the concept that if you don't like the prices a company charges or the company's buisness practices or the product they're selling then you would make it quite clear it's a product you are willing to do without. Stealing a product just legitimizes the company's practices and establishes the value of the product. Piracy is effectively empowering companies.
There is no excuse for piracy. If you're chosing to do it, you are the one that deserves what they get, not the company you are stealing from. It really is that simple.
What about the predatory and anti-competitive practises those organisations engage in to ensure we only listen to what they what us too?
For example, P2P is often cited by many small no name music groups as the perfect medium for them. Often those groups are left alone by the big corporates while they shove their canned crap down our throats. Its not just a case of if you don't like it don't buy it, they are trying to lock down an monopolize every bit of the business.
There is no excuse for predatory practises. If they chose to do it they ae the ones that deserve wat the get, not the consumers defending their rights. It really is that simple.
-
They've had it too good for too long!
-
Just like Microsoft, eh Vulcan?
I do not recall anyone shoving entertainment down my throat. Last time I checked, I had the choice to buy it or not to buy it. If I like it, I buy it, if I don't I don't.
Where do you live that you are being forced to purchase entertainment?
If you do not like the business practices (speaking in general now), then vote with your wallet. Seems pretty simple to me. Of course, we all know people do not have enough gumption to actually follow through with that.
If you steal it, then all you are doing is saying you want it, but you do not want to pay for it and do not have enough strength of character to walk away from it.
Oh no, you want others to fix it for you, but in the meantime you will rant and rave so as to make you position appear to be legitimate.
The human capacity for rationalizing thier personal actions is simply amazing.
I'll never begrudge a company making a buck. I do not consider slamming Microsoft for the gouging on what they deliver either, even though the product has far too many problems.
When it comes to my entertainment dollar, I find a lot of value in my DVD purchases. Apparently, so do many others, which insures a good flow of the product. making it possible to see many films on DVD, which may not have been considered before. Indeed, many older film classics are being brought to market completely restored. Big bucks to do that, but I am glad to see it and gladly pay for it.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
There is no excuse for predatory practises. If they chose to do it they ae the ones that deserve wat the get, not the consumers defending their rights. It really is that simple.
What right is being removed again? And how is stealing something defending a right? The Boston Tea party wasn't a rebellion where a bunch of people got together to steal tea because the British were charging too much for it. They dumped it all into the sea and we've been drinking coffee ever since.
Thankyou for proving my point for me vulcan. You don't get it because you don't want to.
Nobody is denying anyone technology. Nobody is denying anyone music.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
or the satisfaction of them whining about you killing them.
Ahhh yes. Long live The Hate :D
culero (I Hate all of you!)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just like Microsoft, eh Vulcan?
I do not recall anyone shoving entertainment down my throat. Last time I checked, I had the choice to buy it or not to buy it. If I like it, I buy it, if I don't I don't.
Where do you live that you are being forced to purchase entertainment?
Yes just like Microsoft. But you're looking at it from the wrong end of the stick skuzzy. What I am talking about is the way the big boys shut down stuff they don't like. That includes new technologies and new "entertainers". Until recently musicians were practically forced into line by these big corporations, some musicians are actively embracing P2P and other digital technologies.
I've seen the reports on piracy figures. Most show an overall increase is music sales when online music sales are included. Most conclude that those pirating music would most likely not have purchased it or simply "taped it" from another source previously.
So what are the RIAA protecting? They're trying to protect their prehistoric industry structure which fills the pockets of middlemen no longer necessary.
Minid: "Nobody is denying anyone technology"
You reckon? Have you seen the legislature trying to be pushed through in the USA - where an iPod could be considered illegal, or a photocopier? Or how about that new anti-piracy technology they want enforced into every PC. Will you be happying paying more for your PC because of that. Or how about the law they are trying get through forcing you to buy a license for every device you want to listen to the music you purchased on (ie, 1 license for your CD player, 1 for your car, 1 for your MP3 player).
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It should be okay to steal if you steal only from someone who has just a whole lot of money.
The DNC called, they copyrighted that phrase and want you to stop using it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What right is being removed again? And how is stealing something defending a right? The Boston Tea party wasn't a rebellion where a bunch of people got together to steal tea because the British were charging too much for it. They dumped it all into the sea and we've been drinking coffee ever since.
Thankyou for proving my point for me vulcan. You don't get it because you don't want to.
Nobody is denying anyone technology. Nobody is denying anyone music.
Yea this is pretty short sighted. THe RIAA and MPAA are trying to kill P2P technology just like they wanted to kill the VCR/beta.
I'm not defending the right for somone to ilegally download music/movies. I'm defending the right of a legitimit business operating legitimate technology being sued out of existance because the customers are misusing it.
-
If RIAA would have offered working alternatives to P2P initially, nobody would have needed to be sued at all. Most people will choose the legal way when possible.
They didn't listen to the demand of the market and they 'suffer' for it. Realistically speaking thier sales are doing better than ever and nobody else except the consumer is getting hurt through thier witch hunt that's consuming millions of lawyer dollars. Every single one of them included in each overpriced cd or dvd you buy.
Remember the 90's promises of droping the cd prices to LP levels once production gets running? False promises, lies and most of all greed.
-
I've boycoted every product that's related to RIAA for about 2 years now. I won't buy a single CD as long as they're suing people.
-
The equipment is out there that enables anyone to produce their own music. Virtually anyone can release an album on the web. The problem is, once it hits the web, it now becomes "free" thanks to all the people that feel the RIAA is evil. In an environment where doors are being opened, the public is showing exactly how little they really care about anything but themselves when it comes to stealing.
The small companies are getting crushed by piracy. The big companies are just getting bigger because of it.
Basically, every argument that's being levied in this thread is exactly why piracy is a problem that cannot be ignored. Every argument being levied in this thread is exactly why the big corperations are being empowered every time one of their products is stolen.
If you want to reduce the cost of a product, there needs to be a reduction in demand. This is fundamental economics. The only way to hurt a company is to show you do not need them nor their products. Stealing their products does nothing other than justify the cost.
Damn... it's simply amazing that people still continue to justify their actions. Steal away... just don't pretend it's for some kind of noble cause. And don't pretend it doesn't have an impact on anything.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The equipment is out there that enables anyone to produce their own music. Virtually anyone can release an album on the web. The problem is, once it hits the web, it now becomes "free" thanks to all the people that feel the RIAA is evil. In an environment where doors are being opened, the public is showing exactly how little they really care about anything but themselves when it comes to stealing.
The small companies are getting crushed by piracy. The big companies are just getting bigger because of it.
Basically, every argument that's being levied in this thread is exactly why piracy is a problem that cannot be ignored. Every argument being levied in this thread is exactly why the big corperations are being empowered every time one of their products is stolen.
If you want to reduce the cost of a product, there needs to be a reduction in demand. This is fundamental economics. The only way to hurt a company is to show you do not need them nor their products. Stealing their products does nothing other than justify the cost.
Damn... it's simply amazing that people still continue to justify their actions. Steal away... just don't pretend it's for some kind of noble cause. And don't pretend it doesn't have an impact on anything.
Its simply amazing that people still continue to justify the predetory actions of big companys that arent losing a dime but want to have TOTAL control. Yup why even invent the next greatest thing. Somone might use it wrongly and the MPAA/RIAA will sue you out of existance.
-
typical owner of an evil multinational...like Sony, (SNE) which closed on Friday at 40.34, or Time Warner (TWX) which closed at 17.97:
(http://www.leaf.org/photos/2001/february/Trip%20to%20Hobart/Grandma%20Evans%20and%20Ellie.jpg)
-
What company's actions am I justifying? Show me where I agree with any of the buisness practices of the RIAA.
I'm saying it's stupid to steal music on the internet and blame the RIAA for it. It only serves to strengthen the position of the RIAA. It only serves as a justification to either increase the cost of the music or to restrict internet access. The RIAA is not responsible for what is going on with napster/e-mule/bitorrent/etc... idiots that use them all illegaly are.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What company's actions am I justifying? Show me where I agree with any of the buisness practices of the RIAA.
I'm saying it's stupid to steal music on the internet and blame the RIAA for it. It only serves to strengthen the position of the RIAA. It only serves as a justification to either increase the cost of the music or to restrict internet access. The RIAA is not responsible for what is going on with napster/e-mule/bitorrent/etc... idiots that use them all illegaly are.
I disagree. If they'd have reacted swiftly instead of tryin to save their archaic business model people would have never resorted to this in such measures. I'm not saying stealing is right but somone could have done the same thing with cassette tapes bud didn't because there was a better alternative.
-
You disagree with just what exactly? And... you seem to think they should have done something OTHER than stop people from stealing from them? How do you come up with this ****?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Damn... it's simply amazing that people still continue to justify their actions. Steal away... just don't pretend it's for some kind of noble cause. And don't pretend it doesn't have an impact on anything.
Actually I haven't downloaded an MP3 legally or illegally for a long time now. Nor have I purchased music. Most of my audio time is spent listening to audiobooks thankfully published by non-music industry sources.
However, the RIAA is trying to enforce security into my PC, my MP3 player, my car audio system. So I say screw them and applaude those that damage the RIAA and their cronies financially.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You disagree with just what exactly? And... you seem to think they should have done something OTHER than stop people from stealing from them? How do you come up with this ****?
Ummm yes. I do seem to think they should have done something other than sue their own customers. There are ALOT of things they could have done. Most people LOVED napster cause of it's convenience. But, like others it had it's limitations. If they would have offered a $20 a month all u can DL service that was fast and had good music on it I would have signed up and so would have millions of others. They could have nipped this in the bud so to speak from the very begining.
Just as the article explains the beginings of the VCR. They faught it kicking and screaming and it turned out to be one of their most viable ventures to day leading up to today's DVD sales.
Then I hear that piracy is killing them and they need this new technology needs to be stopped.....take one look at their sales stats and that doesnt quite seem to be the case.
People WILL pay for a good DVD with the extras and the packaging vrs. downloading it. The market studies are out there. There ARE honest people who WILL pay for a GOOD product. The MPAA and RIAA just don't get that. I dont agree with piracy but the MPAA/RIAA going after P2P because of it is BS.
-
Going after someone stealing something from you is never BS.
Piracy does not hurt those listed vulcan, it hurts those not listed. You are applauding the destruction of the smaller companies because you seem to think it's worth it to be a thorn in the side of a larger company. That's sad.
The RIAA would have had to step in and take over napster. The program itself would have had to make allowances for strict controll of the tracking of software/music being distributed. There would have been every bit the *****ing from that action that we are seeing now. Quite simply, those "customers" were only "customers" when the product was free. You're basically arguing that as long as a shoplifter buys something, he shouldn't be punished for the things he stole. Every singe one of the arguments for piracy enabling software is simply transparent.
You also realize that the fundamental justification that the RIAA is making money, therefore stealing from them is OK is quite silly too? It doesn't matter how much is made, but how much is stolen. The stock holders in those companies are all impacted by the fact that billions of dollars of extra revenue were lost. How much is made does not impact that in any way, shape or form.
So... once again, I don't go out and preach that piracy is evil and you're going to hell if you do it. I just don't have the stoumach to sit and read about someone insisting that it's a good thing and they're some kind of robin hood for doing it. It is stealing. There is no fundamental justification for it. Do it, shut up, and pray you don't get caught.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You're basically arguing that as long as a shoplifter buys something, he shouldn't be punished for the things he stole.
No I am saying that I shouldn't have to pay for technology in my PC, MP3 player, and car that I don't want, nor deserve.
The RIAA and their croneys are using the piracy issue to drive limiting technology and laws down peoples throats. They are striving for an assume guilt until proven inncocent situation.
What will you say when they charge for each time you listen to a piece of music?
-
all i have to say is
HHHAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!
-
What technology is being limited vulcan? really? Neither you nor gunslinger have answered that. Is it limited in that you cannot copy licensed material? Is that the limitation you refer to? You can still copy unlicensed material though, right?
The RIAA and their croneys have been provided every excuse necessary to "drive limiting technology and laws down people's throats." Or are you actually trying to tell me that Napster was used primarily to distribute legal copies of music? Or are you trying to tell me that Bittorent is not used to download pirated DvDs? You're preaching to an entire internet that knows better vulcan.
If you're only using the software/hardware for legitimate/legal uses, then you're not being limited at all. Everything else is simply pissing about something you have no right to ***** about anyways.
-
I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.
Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.
Actually most of the games and audio CD's that I've bought in the last 3 or 4 years I had stolen of the net first.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.
Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.
Actually most of the games and audio CD's that I've bought in the last 3 or 4 years I had stolen of the net first.
Yeah...it's kinda like trying it out first..most people will agree that Demo's are a lame way to sell a product..and with music..most of em have flaws or are cut short..so yeah..i too end up buying the CD too.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I'm an internet theif, like most people with a pc and an internet connection. I'm not going to try to rationalize it.
Although, when I find that I really like what I've stolen, I usually buy the product.
Yep... me too! I'll buy it if it's good stuff, but if it's crap, at least I didn't get ripped off.
-
I think the likes of the RIAA are making potential customers turn away from buying legitimate records and media content due to their fascist persecusion of people that seldom donwload any media content form p2p networks.
That's how the Likes of Lars Ulrich got so much animosity, instead of adapting to the new media types and ways of distribution available they decided to crack down on those same people that bought their records and put in a place where they became multi billionares.
What really angers records companies is that profts for them as a middle man are being cut and potential bands that might sign up with said record labels might distribute their music on a cheaper medium that allows them to gain all profits directly without having to pay a patron for distributing their music, it's a fact most bands make the big dough on the tours,and many new bands that are comuing out that are good gain recognition on the net before any other place .
-
Originally posted by Mini D
What technology is being limited vulcan? really? Neither you nor gunslinger have answered that. Is it limited in that you cannot copy licensed material? Is that the limitation you refer to? You can still copy unlicensed material though, right?
MiniD you don't seem be to "up with the play" on what they are trying to get passed into the law in the USA, and subsquently forced through in other countries.
The first issue is they are trying to make any product whos "primary" use is illegal ... illegal. Very vague, it could end it up including photocopiers, vcr's, dvd burners, cd writers, tape decks.
The second issue is they are trying to enforce copy protection hardware into every electronic recording device. IE PC's, MP3 players, CD players.
The next one gets very dodgey. They are trying to enforce licensed software/multimedia only. Although they are calling it "authorised". Basically your DVD/MP3 player will not play any music/video that has got a certain type of security certificate. MS was very big into this one (I forget their codename). For example, if I was in a band and cut an MP3 track, you could not listen to my music unless I purchased an authentication "certificate" for my track.
Then theres the music licensing. One law they are pushing goes to the extent of requiring you to own a license for a music track on a per device basis. IE, if you want to play it on your stereo, MP3 player, and card cd player you need to buy 3 licenses.
The most extreme system being discussed is a per play license. Where you download a track and pay for each time you listen to it.
Notice how a lot of this stuff has gone beyond curing the piracy issue to the "lets secure a lifetime of money"?
-
Actually... no I didn't notice.
What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?
I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.
The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.
Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... no I didn't notice.
What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?
I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.
The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.
Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.
SO basically your saying it is right for somone who has never downloaded somthing illegally to be forced to pay for eveyone elses wrong doings. AND that media giants have ultimate say in what new technology comes out.....
You set precidence in one court case and it can change the face of technology for decades.
EDIT:
In addition I can sue 3M if i am ever kidnapped and secured with duct tape?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... no I didn't notice.
What I did notice was about 482 million reasons why they are completely justified in their actions. The simple stupidity of thinking that downloading thousands of free mp3s would not bring reprocussions is amazing to say the least. What did you think would happen?
I had a discussion with someone at work about 5 years ago about "free music on the web". Nothing is free, but he wouldn't believe it. There is nothing that won't have some cost associated, but he wouldn't believe it. If I didn't know you lived in New Zealand, I'd swear it was you.
The music industry has never been more justified in their actions than they are right now. Napster, bittorent and whatever filesharing software is out there has ensured that. All those people you are slapping on the back for sticking it to the RIAA are ensuring that too.
Simple short sightedness. It reminds me of the poor souls that were gathering the free fish on the shore as the tidal wave came in.
Short sightedness? The music industry ignored the consumer demand for digital music delivery. They said if you don't like our CD's don't buy them. They said if you don't like the price of our CD's don't buy them. So people stopped buying them.
Do you think piracy never existed before Mp3s and the internet?
Answer me this one question MiniD: what is one of greatest sources of lost income due to piracy for the music industry and what are they doing about it?
-
Do I think piracy never existed? No. Do I think it was never as quantifiable as it is right now? Yep.
You could digitize music for some time vulcan. That was never the issue. It was the "grab it for free" mentality that pretty much sealed the consumers fate and gave the RIAA all the power they needed.
The RIAA is doing plenty about lost revenue, you just insist that they should be looking elsewhere... not at piracy. That is something you feel should be championed.
Stealing music instead of buying it is not the answer to the RIAA. That is simple short sightedness. Your failure to grasp that simple fact is astounding. The RIAA doesn't have to do anything about it because it empowers them to do other things.
The RIAA could bully all they wanted, there really wasn't anything tangeable enough to use as a weapon without risking "monopolistic" claims. Napster and 500 million ignoramus remedied that predicament. Well, at least they got some free tunes out of it.
Oh... and I seriously doubt you'll see something on hardware that only plays RIAA licensed music. More likely, you'll see something that requires that licensed software be used to generate the MP3. You see, Microsoft is reaping the same benifits as the RIAA right now. They've been empowered too.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Short sightedness? The music industry ignored the consumer demand for digital music delivery. They said if you don't like our CD's don't buy them. They said if you don't like the price of our CD's don't buy them. So people stopped buying them.
What's wrong with that? As long as people don't steal the product that the music industry creates, then there is no problem.
And the music industry created and launched digital media before any consumer even knew what that was.
Nobody has a right to steal media, peroid.
-
steal.. sure.. items which can be cloned at no cost by the publishers, yet sold at the maximum price.
Funny thing is that many of the retail products contains copy protection systems, which might make it unplayable for some people to listen to it as they want to.
Like it is much easier to just take a portable MP3 player, than a portable CD player, which would also require the CD's to be carried. If the CD plays on the player.
Yet the music is copied just as easily as before, regardless of all the work on the copy protections.
Only thing they work at, is to prevent the paying customers from using the product.
Absolutely brilliant thinking... why do they insist to do it when its useless?
Thats a thing which I still haven't figured out even with the most bizarre logic.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Do I think piracy never existed? No. Do I think it was never as quantifiable as it is right now? Yep.
Still haven't answered me on the income lost due to piracy.... so I'll fill you in. Its estimated 1 in 3 CDs sold is a pirated copy. It gets worse... they are not pirated in the "copy and print your own cd" sense, many come out the back of factories.
That figure is included in all figures quoted by the likes of the RIAA when quoting piracy loses at the P2P networks.
Thats been going on for ohhh at least 10 years, I worked with someone in the media industry who told me the factory "failure" rates, especially in Asian CD presses.
What have the RIAA done about that?
You could digitize music for some time vulcan. That was never the issue. It was the "grab it for free" mentality that pretty much sealed the consumers fate and gave the RIAA all the power they needed.
That wasn't just the issue. The RIAA and the movie crowd had a stranglehold on many distribution channels. They still do. Distribution of music was and is monopolised with them hold the price strings. In areas where the music was not freely available the P2P network solves the demands and needs that the RIAA refused to supply. They made their bed now they have to lie in it.
Perfect example of this is in NZ: people here cottoned onto the fact that they could get the latest movies out of the USA on DVD. So the movie companies lobbied the government and got a law passed which prevents companies from importing DVDs within 6 months of their release - forcing people to watch the movies at a movie theatre.
Whats worse, if a movie doesn't get released in the movie theatres it still won't be on DVD on store shelves for 6 months.
So what happens? People download the movies off the net because they can't buy them off the shelves and our movie theatres over here are horrible (some towns don't have any).
Was the law a response to piracy? NO!. Was a predatory move? YES. What was the end result: it encourages piracy!
You get it minid? The RIAA encouraged piracy by ignored the market and the market turned around and bit it in the ass.
-
That is pure simple rationalizatrion Vulcan.
I miss many movie releases, or chose not to see them in the theater. I do not mind waiting until they are available on DVD. Why would anyone mind waiting?
I do not like the RIAA either, but rather than just steal the work, I would rather think it would be more beneficial to attack the actual problem. Stealing/pirating is not going to solve anything.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
If you want to reduce the cost of a product, there needs to be a reduction in demand. This is fundamental economics.
Increase in supply reduces cost as well. And what we are talking about is a massive increase in supply of the product at an incredibly lower cost.
And the prices of CDs are dropping because of it, at least they are up here.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
typical owner of an evil multinational...like Sony, (SNE) which closed on Friday at 40.34, or Time Warner (TWX) which closed at 17.97:
(http://www.leaf.org/photos/2001/february/Trip%20to%20Hobart/Grandma%20Evans%20and%20Ellie.jpg)
jebus... is she going to eat that baby ?
no no no..... i knew it... i knew it... Im so happy that i dont buy Sony
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
MiniD you don't seem be to "up with the play" on what they are trying to get passed into the law in the USA, and subsquently forced through in other countries.
The first issue is they are trying to make any product whos "primary" use is illegal ... illegal. Very vague, it could end it up including photocopiers, vcr's, dvd burners, cd writers, tape decks.
The second issue is they are trying to enforce copy protection hardware into every electronic recording device. IE PC's, MP3 players, CD players.
The next one gets very dodgey. They are trying to enforce licensed software/multimedia only. Although they are calling it "authorised". Basically your DVD/MP3 player will not play any music/video that has got a certain type of security certificate. MS was very big into this one (I forget their codename). For example, if I was in a band and cut an MP3 track, you could not listen to my music unless I purchased an authentication "certificate" for my track.
Then theres the music licensing. One law they are pushing goes to the extent of requiring you to own a license for a music track on a per device basis. IE, if you want to play it on your stereo, MP3 player, and card cd player you need to buy 3 licenses.
The most extreme system being discussed is a per play license. Where you download a track and pay for each time you listen to it.
Notice how a lot of this stuff has gone beyond curing the piracy issue to the "lets secure a lifetime of money"?
come on boy :rofl
DVD were also UNhackable UNrippable untill it has been released
let them enforce us to lick the ground and we will simply put an icecream right to the place, where we are supposed to lick it.
So goverment will pass the law, whitch IS ABSOLUTLY BRILIANT AND WILL SAVE THE WORLD .... MS and other lobotomized compnies owned by whoever will get big deals and all people will sleep well , coz they cant commit sins anymore.
Goverments sux at "CODE warfare" :D
its just another useless try Vulcan dont be that scared.
Just one final qusetion .... Did crucify of Napster solve something ? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Stealing/pirating is not going to solve anything.
So you probably realize that concept of selling movies, music is obsolete and should be changed ?
Movie and music industry should finaly realize that nobody want to buy rabbit in the bag and listen how he has been rip off, while some funny puppy in gayish t-shirt earned megabillions, coz i bought black box.
Does it make sense ?
-
I have no problem paying for DVD's, as I have said before. I think it is a good value for my entertainment dollar.
I did not make any proposals. What are you proposing? If the DVD cannot be bought in a store, then I will no longer be able to enjoy them. Screw that. I like my movies.
-
Having a 150mph car like mine is legal, driving it at 150mph on public roads is illegal. Owning a firearm is legal (for now), using it to threaten or harm my neighbor is illegal.
The technology and tools that pirates use should remain legal, stealing copyrighted material and IP should remain illegal.
Law enforcement needs to be smarter or try harder than the criminals; that is the only constitutional solution. Of course the ppublic can tell the LE officials that movie/music/software piracy is low on the priority list of things to pursue and prosecute. That is what I heard said early in this thread.
-
Originally posted by lada
So you probably realize that concept of selling movies, music is obsolete and should be changed ?
Yeah, how silly of the music and movie industry to think they might be able to sell their products which they have invested millions of dollars in. It's such an obsolete concept.
-
If I read him correctly NUKE, he thinks it should be changed, but does not make any suggestion as to what it should be changed to.
I cannot figure out why it is obsolete to go to a retail store and purchase the DVD, but I am curious.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
That is pure simple rationalizatrion Vulcan.
I miss many movie releases, or chose not to see them in the theater. I do not mind waiting until they are available on DVD. Why would anyone mind waiting?
I do not like the RIAA either, but rather than just steal the work, I would rather think it would be more beneficial to attack the actual problem. Stealing/pirating is not going to solve anything.
Only takes 1 movie you want to see. Its fairly prolific to the point it suprises me now in NZ considering we pay for bandwidth. It certainly wasn't this bad before the govt introduced the restrictions so how else would you explain the way things went?
FWIW I have a satellite TV sub, and for the last 6 or 7 years my attitude was that was my source of movies... between work and gaming I've never had time so never worried about the latest movies. So my point of view is more an obervation than a participation.
-
I'm growing very tired of your blind ignorance vulcan.
The RIAA avoided digital distribution on the net for the very reasons Napster highlighted. Once you distribute it on the net, it is all but impossible to keep from being re-distributed. The old "it's just a backup" defense... a backup that hundreds of millions of people have access too.
You want to know why I think people are downloading more free movies in NZ right now? It's because in the last year bittorent has made it easier than ever. I know more people in the states that download DvDs rather than buy them. And that's given the fact that people know I actually buy all the DvDs in my collection and are reluctant to bring the subject up around me.
As for your movie theater example, you're blaming the RIAA or the movie industry for that one? Really? I mean... it's not like it was killing the buisness at your local theaters... right? It must have been the RIAA that forced your legislation to act so swiftly. Lord knows it couldn't have been the theater owners that were seeing a significant loss of revenue. Nah. It must have been the RIAA that was responsible for all that is evil.
As for the chinese piracy thing... what exactly is anyone supposed to do about that again? They don't waste time on the stuff they have no control over. They go after the things they do. Piracy over the internet, in the states, is that thing. It is driving all of the "features" you're *****ing about. It is the root cause of everything you're citing the RIAA for.
The RIAA is guilty of wanting to hold onto licensing rights. They are guilty of thinking that making something easy to re-distribute will result in massive re-distribution (Napster and such proved this to the nth degree). They are guilty of being a typical greedy organization... just like every other company in the world.
You don't like the way they throttle distribution channels, then address that. That has nothing to do with piracy. Well.. actually it does. Every channel that is made available to enable independants to get out from under the RIAA is overwhelmed by transfer of pirated files. The little guy is shut out not by the RIAA, but by piracy.
Wake up and put a little thought into the subject vulcan. The RIAA is a typical buisness. If you don't like the way they do it, then go after their buisness practices. Stealing from them is not accomplishing anything, it is only validating them. Everything you have posted has only validated the RIAA's stance on virtually every anti-piracy policy they are driving.
I'm sorry, but that's really all I have to say on the subject.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wake up and put a little thought into the subject vulcan. The RIAA is a typical buisness. If you don't like the way they do it, then go after their buisness practices. Stealing from them is not accomplishing anything, it is only validating them. Everything you have posted has only validated the RIAA's stance on virtually every anti-piracy policy they are driving.
I'm sorry, but that's really all I have to say on the subject.
LOL. I'm not stealing from them (as I noted earlier). Merely pointing out that they have contributed heavily to their current situation and that I find their bleating amusing and their moves towards stifling technology predatory.
Yes they are a business. Yes they tried to monopolize the market. No they failed to meet consumer demand. Yes the consumer demand met its own needs.
Take ANOTHER example in NZ. There is no Itunes store, nor any other "MP3" store. The only online music sales we have access to are very old music or local content. Now, where do you think all those people with MP3 players like Ipods go to get their music online?
Its kind of like the only guy that owns an apple tree in town always bragging about how great his apples are but only letting people buy apple skin. Eventually someone gets pissed off and steals his apples.
RIAA deny them the channels, so they make their own. Then the RIAA cry "piracy" because they failed to meet market demands. Oh dear how sad never mind, your industry is running out of money to keep your "bling" and drug habits going because you tried to be smart and got outmanoevred in the market.
:rolleyes:
-
It should be okay to steal if you steal from only those corporations with questionable ethics... who have just a whole lot of money... and who have failed to meet market demands.
There it is, the ethical standard of the third millenium.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The members of the RIAA have nobody to blame but themselves. They tried to stiffle competition and innovation, and it backfired on them. Ha bloody ha... like the man says... rip & burn!
I didn't say you stole anything vulcan, but you sure as hell seem to think piracy is merrited. You only use the fact that you don't pirate as some kind of holy ground. You condone it, you praise it, you ignore the rammifications. It's called ignorance.
-
Sooo, should I take a lack of response as you conceding my point Minid?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The RIAA avoided digital distribution on the net for the very reasons Napster highlighted. Once you distribute it on the net, it is all but impossible to keep from being re-distributed. The old "it's just a backup" defense... a backup that hundreds of millions of people have access too.
Just like the VHS's were backups... or tapes..
The internet distribution will be the future and what is the RIAA going to do? Sit aside in the "stone age" as everyone else rushes ahead of them?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Just like the VHS's were backups... or tapes..
The internet distribution will be the future and what is the RIAA going to do? Sit aside in the "stone age" as everyone else rushes ahead of them?
Internet disributation?? You mean internet stealling. Would you pay to download movies on the internet?
Stone age? lol!
-
I cannot figure out why it is obsolete to go to a retail store and purchase the DVD, but I am curious.
It's obsolete because of the artificial limitations the industry tries to pose on the trade. Region code is limiting the sales of different articles on different countries. Naturally it was hacked the day it came out but now they drive legislation to make bypassing region codes illegal.
It all sums up to unbelievable greed where they prefer to limit the _legal_ purchasing of consumers in order to gain a few extra bucks.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Internet disributation?? You mean internet stealling. Would you pay to download movies on the internet?
Stone age? lol!
I've already paid for different things to download off the net and sometimes chosen to download the product rather than pick it up from a store.
With a full rate ADSL I don't have problem with big downloads.
It would take from an hour to four hours to download a movie, depending on the servers capability.
It would make it a rather interesting choice to download a movie and burn it on a DVD myself, instead of picking it up from a store.
Heck, I could even print the case covers.
Better yet, the bandwidth is all the time increasing and that makes downloading of movies even faster. Yet the industry is reluctant to sell through the internet downloads.
It's complete bull to claim the downloadable products would easier become pirated, because theres already piracy with the highly protected products at the stores. Highly protected products, which at most only helps the honest customer to get pissed off.
Yes, they'd be at the stone age, if the potential of the internet isn't used.
What comes to 'stealing', I still don't see how it is possible to 'steal' immaterial items, which can be cloned at no cost.
Also someone copying the immaterial item illegit doesn't do the same damage to it's owner than when stealing... say.. the CD from a store.
Then again if it wouldn't be possible, it'd be highly likely the person wouldn't either buy the CD.
Wheres the loss?
I'd say the loss would be somewhere 1/100th of the claimed loss of revenue (simply put: 1 out of 100 people with illegit copy would actually buy the product, if it wouldn't be at all possible to copy *anything* illegally).
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
It's obsolete because of the artificial limitations the industry tries to pose on the trade. Region code is limiting the sales of different articles on different countries. Naturally it was hacked the day it came out but now they drive legislation to make bypassing region codes illegal.
It all sums up to unbelievable greed where they prefer to limit the _legal_ purchasing of consumers in order to gain a few extra bucks.
In a 2003 appeal Sony won a court case (it appealed against a 2002 decision they lost) against a individual selling mod chips for Sony Playstations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission agreed and assisted with the defense argument that region coding of playstation games was part of a wider problem of region coding DVD's etc. Its stand was that overseas markets give Australian consumers access to a wider range of competitively priced film titles with special features not otherwise available here. Which also means they are forced to pay higher prices for films with fewer features and a lesser range of film titles. The ACCC said that consumers’ interests are best served by ensuring access to the widest possible range of goods at the most competitive prices and Sony had overridden this basic consumer right by creating and maintaining artificial barriers to trade that are not warranted by the law. Sony won the case appeal by arguing mods/region coding combo was to fight against piracy.
I personally don't D/L movies mostly because I prefer the quality of legit DVD's. But I do burn copies for close friends only because I don't like lending them out. I don't consider that theft.
Tronsky
-
Internet distribution?
Right. No way in heck am I going to download a 40GB+ film when the HD-DVD format is available. Heck, I do not have the patience to wait for Aces High to download, nor do I want my home Internet connection saturated for those long periods of time.
I can go to the store and buy the DVD faster than it could be downloaded.
I could care less about region codes Siaf. Never been a problem for any movie I have purchased.
The thread still wreaks of 'rationalizing' the theft of copyrighted works. Vote with your wallet and just walk away from it, if you feel so strongly about it. But saying, "I will not pay for it", but "I will steal it", is just admitting you lack conviction of principles and are simply using an excuse to steal it.
As long as the demand is there, whether through theft or purchase, then why would or should anything change? By stealing it, you are contributing to what you claim to hate. You are driving demand up and thus not giving them (RIAA) any motivation to change anything.
-
I could care less about region codes Siaf. Never been a problem for any movie I have purchased.
That's easy to say when you live in the US. How about rest of the world.
Actually, even US hobbyists will be limited from buying dvd's direct from hong kong or Japan if they're fans of such films. I have quite a few dvd's from that area which will never be in distribution in US or europe.
-
Please elaborate. I do not live in the 'rest of the world'. What is the problem?
-
Sorry I edited my post afterwards. Ayway the prob is that a huge chunk of the content will not be accessible to everyone or it will be accessible in much degraded form.
Some countries rape the products by dubbing them for example.
If I order my dvd's directly from US I get 10-15% cheaper price, better sound quality and better extras compared to PAL versions where picture eats a lot of needed storage.
-
The RIAA controls the content of other countries DVD's? That is news to me. How did that happen?
EDIT: Trade-offs. PAL video quality should be better than the NTSC quality of the U.S. DVD. A world standard has been needed for a long time, but I cannot see where the RIAA is to be faulted for that either.
-
There can be no excuse or justification for the theft of copyrighted materials or intellectual property. Just as there can be no excuse or justification in a billion dollar corporation prosecuting a private individual who is a comsumer of pirated materials.
Go after those distributing the pirated warez and you wont lose the sympathy vote that you lose when you prosecute grandma for having the latest Offspring CD.
Also, I am sure the pr0n industry loses more anual revenue to the P2P people than does Sony, Microsoft, or Warner Brothers.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sooo, should I take a lack of response as you conceding my point Minid?
No, I didn't see it. It wasn't much of a point anyways.
CDs still cost the same here as they always have. $12-$18 for new CDs. The only real complaint people seem to have is that the price of CDs isn't dropping, though it hasn't gone up for about 20 years either.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Go after those distributing the pirated warez and you wont lose the sympathy vote that you lose when you prosecute grandma for having the latest Offspring CD.
They did go after people distributing the music. Don't confuse what the people here claim vs what actually happened. That poor poor 12 year old girl and her single mom had 2000 songs available for download from her PC. That big evil company wasn't looking to crack down on a 12 year old... a 12 year old just happened to be one of the bigger suppliers. It just goes to show that the average person, if given the chance, would rather steal/distribute than pay for music. Once again... justification for actions.
-
RIAA is not at fault with dvd's it's MPAA and other distributors who created the region code system.
It's main idea (I think) is to ensure income for movie theaters in countries where movies are displayed later than in the US. That means 6 month - 1 year of delay before content is accessible on dvd even if the movie premiered 2 years ago in US.
The PAL-NTSC thing is true to some extent. Most people would trade the minor improvement of PAL to DTS sound and extras any time. Just as I'm doing when I'm ordering an ntsc version and play them through my hacked dvd-player. Other nice 'features' include no progressive outputs for dvd players (they say it gives 'too good' visual quality to hometheathers) etc. that can be hacked away. Same applies to standard vga and component outputs.
If the industry had thier way we'd be watching our high priced local movies from hardware that's been artificially neutered in order to ensure an inferior picture quality compared to the movies.
Thanks to mods/hacks I can order a high-end player from far east that has all the bells and whistles + 40% cheaper price.
They're oppressing the consumers around the world. As said earlier I've now taken a personal stand and stoped buying anything related to RIAA or MPAA.
CDs still cost the same here as they always have. $12-$18 for new CDs. The only real complaint people seem to have is that the price of CDs isn't dropping, though it hasn't gone up for about 20 years either.
When CD was introduced the consumers were promised the prices would drop to LP levels. At that time LPs cost maybe around $6-$8 a record. In europe the cd prices vary from 18 to 30 dollars / record at the moment. Average is around $22-25 I think.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The RIAA controls the content of other countries DVD's? That is news to me. How did that happen?
I think most, if not every, western country has their own RIAA comparable organization and apparently many these organizations DO cooperate with the RIAA.
-
You guys cannot own DVD players with progressive scan outputs? Wierd. But if the MPAA/RIAA are controlling that, then why is it we can get those items legally in the U.S.?
Can you guys buy DVD players with HDMI or DVI outputs? If so, then you get progressive through those interfaces. It just requires a monitor/television with the appropriate input.
How the heck did the MPAA/RIAA get so much power outside of the U.S.?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Internet distribution?
Right. No way in heck am I going to download a 40GB+ film when the HD-DVD format is available. Heck, I do not have the patience to wait for Aces High to download, nor do I want my home Internet connection saturated for those long periods of time.
I can go to the store and buy the DVD faster than it could be downloaded.
Skuzzy still on dialup? :lol
Musicwise
The only copyrighted material I typically download is music I already own on CD to begin with. Easier to make a CD with a mix of songs from different albums that way.
Or really hard to next to impossable to find stuff on CD
Tom Lehr "New Math" or "Poisoning pidgeons in the park" is a good example. .
Another would be if and when I can ever find it is a rendition of "Peter and the Wolf" Narrarated by Boris Karloff.
Not exactly something your usually find in your local record store
Also. how many times am I supposed to pay for the same peice of material I already own?
Movie wise I agree with Skuzzy. With the price of DVDs so cheap these days it just makes more sence to just buy the damn thing.
-
It's called globalization Skuzzy.
For some rediculous reason they think progressive PAL is the end of the world where progressive NTSC is good for children and grownups.
-
How the heck did the MPAA/RIAA get so much power outside of the U.S.?
They create the content. They usually only allow that content to be sold on disks containing CSS protection, and region encoded. CSS "encryption" and regional coding rights are owned by the DVD Copy Control Association, who only licence the technology to "approved" companies.
Without buying a licence from the DVD Copy Control Association you can't make a DVD player that will play the vast majority of DVDs. The DVD Copy Control Association can decide not to licence the technology if the player doesn't fit their standards.
Thankfully their control of the market has largely broken down in some parts of the world. For example, DVD players for the European market can usually be made region free very easily, because manufacturers have found if they don't make their players "hackable" to region free they won't sell.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No, I didn't see it. It wasn't much of a point anyways.
I WIN!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You guys cannot own DVD players with progressive scan outputs? Wierd. But if the MPAA/RIAA are controlling that, then why is it we can get those items legally in the U.S.?
Can you guys buy DVD players with HDMI or DVI outputs? If so, then you get progressive through those interfaces. It just requires a monitor/television with the appropriate input.
How the heck did the MPAA/RIAA get so much power outside of the U.S.?
I think they may be looking to the future.
Read a good article about Internet2 today. Said it is so fast it would only take 30 seconds to D/L a DVD quality copy of the Matrix.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I think they may be looking to the future.
Read a good article about Internet2 today. Said it is so fast it would only take 30 seconds to D/L a DVD quality copy of the Matrix.
I have news (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7476835/) for ya. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I have news (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7476835/) for ya. ;)
ummm yea...that's the same article I read!
Researchers at Internet2 once demonstrated they can download a DVD-quality copy of the popular movie "The Matrix" in 30 seconds over their network, a feat they said would take roughly 25 hours over the Internet
another interesting read (not about internet2 though)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/12/new_file_sharing_lawsuits/print.html
TThe Register » Internet and Law » eCommerce »
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/12/new_file_sharing_lawsuits/
New wave of lawsuits to hit 'illegal song-swappers'
By Charles Arthur (feedback at theregister.co.uk)
Published Tuesday 12th April 2005 12:34 GMT
The record industry is targeting nearly 1,000 people in a new wave of lawsuits against alleged "illegal song-swappers" in actions in 11 countries in Europe and Asia.
Following its first year of legal actions in Europe, which resulted in 248 people paying fines or facing "sanctions", the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI) said this morning that it will bring lawsuits to four new European countries, specifically the Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and Iceland.
Japan is also joining in the fun, becoming the first Asian country to take legal action against people who use P2P services to trade the record business' wares without payment.
Those found guilty by a court, or who settle with the IFPI, are likely to face compensation payments of thousands of pounds, or euros. Or hundreds of thousands of yen.
The IFPI claimed that the first round of European lawsuits, which began last autumn, have already seen illegal file-sharing fall by one third in Germany, where CD sales have dropped precipitiously in the face of widespread CD-burning. "The number of music files downloaded there fell to 382m files in 2004, compared to 602m the previous year," the IFPI said in a statement.
John Kennedy, the IFPI's chairman, said: "Today, people across Europe can be in no doubt that uploading copyrighted music on to file-sharing networks is against the law, affects jobs, investment in music and livelihoods, and carries the risk of financial penalties. We have spent two years raising public awareness of this, and ignorance really is no longer an excuse."
However Julian Midgley, of the Campaign for Digital Rights, thinks the lawsuits are a bad idea. "The CDR has always stood up for copyright law," he said. "But we will say that we aren't convinced that the record industry is going about keeping its buying public on its best side. There's still plenty of evidence that the people who are using file sharing services buy more music than they would otherwise. And it's obvious that suing your customers isn't likely to make them happy." He said the money being spent on lawsuits could better be used providing more - and cheaper - services like Apple's iTunes Music Store.
The IFPI is also extending the range of P2P services it targets, so that it's not just users of KaZaA who are in its sights, but also those of what it calls "newer" file-sharing services such as eDonkey, eMule, Bearshare, OpenNap, DirectConnect and BitTorrent.
Pretty much everyone who uses such services is now a target of the IFPI. Initially, it is chasing what it calls "uploaders", who let files on their machine be available for download by anyone else using the services. The largest case it has settled was a French man with 56,000 tracks - "equivalent to more than 5,000 CD albums" - in his music library. However people who have "uploaded" even a few hundred tracks are in the spotlight in the latest legal cases.
We wondered whether that didn't mean that the IFPI is targeting people who have large music collections, and are thus in a sense already its best customers. The IFPI disagreed. "The default settings of the file-sharing software makes all your files available, but you can change that," said a spokeswoman for the IFPI.
The IFPI is happy that its strategy - of going after those who make big libraries available, rather than download - is working in a 'softly softly' manner, especially as broadband - the technology it sees as assisting evil file-sharing - spreads. The lawsuits have had "a noticeable effect on file-sharing figures despite the growth of broadband penetration," it said today. "Overall, the number of infringing music files on the internet dropped from its peak of 1.1bn in April 2003 to 870m in January 2005, a drop of 21 per cent. In the same time period global broadband penetration grew by 75 per cent, from 80m to 140m households worldwide."
Last month the British Phonographic Industry won settlements (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/04/bpi_fileshare_settlements/) from 23 Britons accused of distributing copyrighted music over file-sharing networks. Three cases are still pending, and expected to reach the courts sometime.
The IFPI's latest assault brings it in line with the US's RIAA, which has filed more than 900 lawsuits, though it made what many saw as the strategic mistake of targeting both downloaders and "uploaders" indiscriminately, leading to bad publicity when one of the first turned out to be a 12-year-old girl. ®
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The RIAA controls the content of other countries DVD's? That is news to me. How did that happen?
EDIT: Trade-offs. PAL video quality should be better than the NTSC quality of the U.S. DVD. A world standard has been needed for a long time, but I cannot see where the RIAA is to be faulted for that either.
Sorry Skuzzy, sometimes I refer to the RIAA/MPAA collective organism in my rants.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Internet disributation?? You mean internet stealling. Would you pay to download movies on the internet?
Stone age? lol!
Don't know bout your country, but right now in mine our main telco is building a network that will deliver anything up to 1Gbps connections to the home/business. Part of the network is already up and running.
Over those connections they will deliver IP, VoIP services, TV services, and Video on Demand services (also known as buying a movie off the internet).
and we're just a little backwater island at the bottom of the pacific.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
RIAA is not at fault with dvd's it's MPAA and other distributors who created the region code system.
It's main idea (I think) is to ensure income for movie theaters in countries where movies are displayed later than in the US. That means 6 month - 1 year of delay before content is accessible on dvd even if the movie premiered 2 years ago in US.
The PAL-NTSC thing is true to some extent. Most people would trade the minor improvement of PAL to DTS sound and extras any time. Just as I'm doing when I'm ordering an ntsc version and play them through my hacked dvd-player. Other nice 'features' include no progressive outputs for dvd players (they say it gives 'too good' visual quality to hometheathers) etc. that can be hacked away. Same applies to standard vga and component outputs....
I personally prefer PAL discs to NTSC, but your correct in some regards R1 releases are more tricked out with regards to DTS, extras etc. But I think thats more market demand than conspiracy.
Also with big releases (Spiderman,Starwars etc) those discs are released globally at basically the same time - but in general some regions do get releases faster than others...but the american R1 isn't "always" the first - but that again is usually market driven. But thats the great thing about amazon.uk, amazon.com etc etc
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You guys cannot own DVD players with progressive scan outputs? Wierd. But if the MPAA/RIAA are controlling that, then why is it we can get those items legally in the U.S.?
Can you guys buy DVD players with HDMI or DVI outputs? If so, then you get progressive through those interfaces. It just requires a monitor/television with the appropriate input.
How the heck did the MPAA/RIAA get so much power outside of the U.S.?
Perhaps it a european thing, but in Aus you can buy progressive scan DVD players, and most DVD players sold here are region free manufactured by the better companies. My 2 DVD players (1 a recorder) are Pioneers and came region free out of the box.
It used to be when players first came out on the market, stores weren't allowed to advertise if a player was region free - but most stores also supplied region free codes with R4 only players (A couple of years ago my brothers Akai player came with codes that took 10 secs to make it region free). I think only Sony still refuse to make their dvd players region free.
Tronsky
-
Internet2 will not happen in our lifetime. It has been rolling around in various forms for almost 7 years now.
Speed of the connection is irrelevant to me as it pertains to downloading something. I prefer to buy the DVD, even if it took 10 seconds to download, because after the download, you have to burn it to disk, then make some labels.
All that time ties up your computer and is a pain in the butt as far as I am concerned. Nicely packaged DVD's are under $20 U.S. It just makes no sense to go through the hassle of a download when it is so cheap to purchase.
I have a 15Mb by 2Mb /second connection at home, but still find it irritating to wait for a 50MB download.
Again, wait until the HD-DVD (or Blueray) DVD's hit the streets. No way in heck will I even consider downloading a 40GB+ movie. That is just nuts.
Oh, and those wonderful 1Gb/s connections cannot be sustained from any server right now, if more than 8 connections to the server are made.
-
On the topic of PtP "Piracy"..
When Napster hit the scene, I was almost a "non factor" in the CD market.. I rarely bought commercial CD's and wasn't all that into buying CD's at all.. I certainly didn't buy CD's for a song or two I might have liked.
The PtP exposure changed that quite a bit.. I sampled tons of groups..of all kinds..and in my own experience I ended up purchasing about 20 CD's in a year whereas the year before I had purchased 1 single CD. If I found a group or songs I liked I always ended up getting the CD eventually..
Maybe others found their experiences differed..but in my case it was a win win for the money grubbing lawyers who call themselves the "recording industry" They really should call themselves the "licensing industry"..the recording title should be left to the artists who don't have law degree's but have talent..
-
Originally posted by Jagr
On the topic of PtP "Piracy"..
When Napster hit the scene, I was almost a "non factor" in the CD market.. I rarely bought commercial CD's and wasn't all that into buying CD's at all.. I certainly didn't buy CD's for a song or two I might have liked.
The PtP exposure changed that quite a bit.. I sampled tons of groups..of all kinds..and in my own experience I ended up purchasing about 20 CD's in a year whereas the year before I had purchased 1 single CD. If I found a group or songs I liked I always ended up getting the CD eventually..
Maybe others found their experiences differed..but in my case it was a win win for the money grubbing lawyers who call themselves the "recording industry" They really should call themselves the "licensing industry"..the recording title should be left to the artists who don't have law degree's but have talent..
My experiences are roughly the same. I donwloaded musid to listen to JUST on my computer. At the time the fastest CDRW I could afford was a 4x and thos took for ever.
In addition I was also DJing alot. The irony is I would find music....download it...Love it so much I'd order/Buy it.....Then I'd play it at my shows and I'd have a ton of people asking "who is this? Were can I get this?" And then my friends at the local music stores say they'd get flooded with calls for said music.
I'm not trying to justify it here but what I don't think is justified is the preditory response from the RIAA. All of this could have been avoided if they were willing to embrace this new tech. For me I think their name is scared forever and people wont soon forget.
-
And when MP3 players came out... ?
The noble behavior of the few posting in this thread is greatly outweighed by the typical behavior of everyone else in the world.
-
"And when MP3 players came out... ?
The noble behavior of the few posting in this thread is greatly outweighed by the typical behavior of everyone else in the world."
Which is completely contradicted by the sales figures despite the RIAA's attempts to hide the facts when they were making their case that it was going to drive their sales into the trash..
-
No it's not.
You absolutely cannot quantify an increase in sales occuring because of increased piracy. It is intangeable and purely speculative. You CAN quantify a loss in revenue based on tracking the amount of illegal file traffic occuring in a very tangeable method.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No it's not.
You absolutely cannot quantify an increase in sales occuring because of increased piracy. It is intangeable and purely speculative. You CAN quantify a loss in revenue based on tracking the amount of illegal file traffic occuring in a very tangeable method.
Just because somone downloads a song does not mean they are going to buy the CD. I myself DID buy MORE music when I could download it.
Don't quote me here as defending piracy cause I'm not. I think people should (and for the most part do) buy music and media the right way.
I just don't buy into all this propiganda from the RIAA that they are hurting because of it. I would even venture a guess to say that their efforts to sue people have resulted in more revenue loss than piracy.
-
Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales
By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, March 29, 2004; 8:06 PM
Internet music piracy has no negative effect on legitimate music sales, according to a study released today by two university researchers that contradicts the music industry's assertion that the illegal downloading of music online is taking a big bite out of its bottom line.
Songs that were heavily downloaded showed no measurable drop in sales, the researchers found after tracking sales of 680 albums over the course of 17 weeks in the second half of 2002. Matching that data with activity on the OpenNap file-sharing network, they concluded that file sharing actually increases CD sales for hot albums that sell more than 600,000 copies. For every 150 downloads of a song from those albums, sales increase by a copy, the researchers found.
"Consumption of music increases dramatically with the introduction of file sharing, but not everybody who likes to listen to music was a music customer before, so it's very important to separate the two," said Felix Oberholzer-Gee, an associate professor at Harvard Business School and one of the authors of the study.
Oberholzer-Gee and his colleague, University of North Carolina's Koleman Strumpf, also said that their "most pessimistic" statistical model showed that illegal file sharing would have accounted for only 2 million fewer compact discs sales in 2002, whereas CD sales declined by 139 million units between 2000 and 2002.
"From a statistical point of view, what this means is that there is no effect between downloading and sales," said Oberholzer-Gee.
For albums that fail to sell well, the Internet may contribute to declining sales. Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf found that albums that sell to niche audiences suffer a "small negative effect" from Internet piracy.
The study stands in opposition to the recording industry's long-held assertion that the rise of illegal file sharing is a major cause of declining music sales over the past few years. In making its case, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) points to data showing that CD sales fell from a high of more than $13.2 billion in 2000 to $11.2 billion in 2003 -- a period that matches the growth of various online music piracy services.
The RIAA has fought illegal music swapping by filing a raft of lawsuits against hundreds of individuals suspected of engaging in music piracy, as well as suits targeting companies like Kazaa and Grokster that make software or run Internet downloading services.
Wayne Rosso, president of the Madrid-based file-sharing company Optisoft, said he hoped the study would spur the RIAA to abandon litigation and look for ways to commercialize file sharing. "There's no question that there is a market there that could easily be commercialized and we have been trying for years to talk sense to these people and make them see that," he said. Rosso formerly ran the Grokster file-sharing service.
Eric Garland, chief executive of Big Champagne, an Atlanta company that tracks file-sharing activity, said the findings match what his company has observed about the effect of file sharing on music sales. Although the practice cannibalizes some sales, it may promote others by serving as a marketing tool, Garland said.
The RIAA questioned the conclusions reached by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf.
"Countless well respected groups and analysts, including Edison Research, Forrester, the University of Texas, among others, have all determined that illegal file sharing has adversely impacted the sales of CDs," RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss said.
Weiss cited a survey conducted by Houston-based Voter Consumer Research that found those who illegally download more music from the Internet buy less from legitimate outlets. Of respondents ages 18-24 who download, 33 percent said they bought less music than in the past year while 21 percent bought more. Of those ages 25-34, the survey found 25 percent bought less and 17 percent bought more, Weiss said.
Larry Rosin, the president of Somerville, N.J.-based Edison Media Research, said it was absurd to suggest that the Internet and file sharing have not had a profound effect on the music industry.
"Anybody who says that the Internet has not affected sales is just not paying attention to what is going on out there," he said. "It's had an effect on everything else in life, why wouldn't it have an effect on this?"
Edison Media Research has done a series of surveys for a music industry trade publication to track the effect of online file sharing on music sales. Rosin said while file-sharing networks can generate advertising value for some CDs, the net effect of file sharing on music sales has been negative.
The Harvard-UNC study is not the first to take aim at the assertion that online music piracy is the leading factor hurting music sales. In two studies conducted in 1999 and 2002, Jupiter Research analyst Aram Sinnreich found that persons who downloaded music illegally from the Internet were also active purchasers of music from legitimate sources.
"While some people seemed to buy less after file sharing, more people seemed to buy more," Sinnreich said. "It was more likely to increase somebody's purchasing habits."
The 2002 Jupiter study showed that people who traded files for more than six months were 75 percent more likely than average online music fans to spend more money on music.
Sinnreich, no longer with Jupiter, has appeared in court as an expert witness on behalf of Grokster, a popular music downloading site that was sued by the recording industry for facilitating music piracy. In that case, a judge ruled that Grokster and several other services that distribute peer-to-peer software could not be shut down just because the software was used to violate intellectual property rights.
-
You have yet to see them do what gunslinger?
Music is being transfered illegaly. Each time this happens, it is a transfer the RIAA should be receiving money on but isn't. That is a very quantifyable loss of revenue. If you can't see this it is because your eyes are closed.
If you download a bunch of music illegally then go out and buy a CD, you can say it was because of the donloading, but it's simply an oppinion and it's purely subjective.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You have yet to see them do what gunslinger?
Music is being transfered illegaly. Each time this happens, it is a transfer the RIAA should be receiving money on but isn't. That is a very quantifyable loss of revenue. If you can't see this it is because your eyes are closed.
If you download a bunch of music illegally then go out and buy a CD, you can say it was because of the donloading, but it's simply an oppinion and it's purely subjective.
How can they say it is a loss when they didn't LOSE anything? They can't, there was never a possible transaction. What they failed to realize is that people would have stopped stealing for the most part if there was a legal viable means to do so.
I have yet to see were they posted any quaterly "losses" that are directly related to piracy. It is that argument that they are using to sue P2P networks and cause intrusive regulations into new product.
I have a big problem when business like this seeks to monoplize and manipulate a market just because they don't approve of the model. Piracy is wrong I will never try to justify it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Music is being transfered illegaly. Each time this happens, it is a transfer the RIAA should be receiving money on but isn't. That is a very quantifyable loss of revenue. If you can't see this it is because your eyes are closed.
If you download a bunch of music illegally then go out and buy a CD, you can say it was because of the donloading, but it's simply an oppinion and it's purely subjective.
Thats just narrow minded thinking.
Do you really think the people, who download music, would necessarily buy all the songs they download?
Not a chance... most of them would run out of money after a single album.
-
The bottom line is the transfers are illegal.. the RIAA paids huge amounts of cash to lobbyists and pols to argue their case for them in Congress.. they sold congress that the transfers were killing their sales...they provided graphs and charts and all sorts of legaleze.. and it was all a complete farse..and they knew it.
There has not been a SINGLE independant study that showed that file transfers have had any negative effect on CD sales.. not one..
I KNOW that in my case it had a positive effect in that I bought far more than I ever would have... sincee I have stopped DL'ing ptp I have bought 1 CD in more than a year..
-
No one would argue that people would go buy all the songs they ever DL..
-
It is a transaction they should have received money for, but they did not. That is a loss by anyone's definition. That is the exact reason why your side of this debate is unsupportable. That is the exact reason why they are being empowered with each and every illegal download.
-
dl/copy music as much as you like, but then please dont
listen to it! because the moment you do it you enjoy
something for free, while others pay for it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It is a transaction they should have received money for, but they did not. That is a loss by anyone's definition. That is the exact reason why your side of this debate is unsupportable. That is the exact reason why they are being empowered with each and every illegal download.
Sorry to say, but this phenomen is something which will co-exist with the legal market.
It is not the same theft as shoplifting or such.. lets call it as the "real life" theft, where it's rather hard to steal immaterial property and everything is solid, unclonable without a cost, causing a direct loss to the owner.
A million and one lawsuits aren't going to help for one bit.
On a long run, it will only hurt the music industry's business AND the economy.
I assume that waste majority of people sued by the RIAA are youth, which of most, I assume, are receiving low income.
They get sued and get exagerrated bills to pay. That can't be good for the economy. At least not if the RIAA could have things done their way = more and more lawsuits.
So they're hurting the business they protect and also affect the overall economy by leaving behind alot of youths with huge debts.
Large debts do also create crime by the people with low income and reduce the work output.
Lawsuits simply aren't going to stop it, neither improved copy protection.
The simpliest way to fight against the piracy is to invest into the internet marketing.
It will not make the piracy go away, but it will give back more money in return than the endless lawsuits against the students.
Besides, it is going to happen sooner or later, which is up to the music industry.
I don't understand why they haven't invested more into the internet marketing.
Apparently they don't like to follow the main stream, but prefer to stay in their area which they know the best.
The history repeats itself.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Large debts do also create crime by the people with low income and reduce the work output.
Fishu, if i understand you right, people doing illegal
things is a good for the economy ?
Whereas people who actually pay for the same stuff are
bad for the economy?
and RIAA is to be blamed for crime & low income result. lol
good night marketing ;)
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It is a transaction they should have received money for, but they did not. That is a loss by anyone's definition. That is the exact reason why your side of this debate is unsupportable. That is the exact reason why they are being empowered with each and every illegal download.
If I 100 sell knock off imitation leather jackets on a street corner and the company that makes the real ones actually sees an increase in sales for the year they did not take a loss.....nore should they have the right to sue the leather manufacturer that provided the materials for the imitation jackets.
Nor can I sue the deliver company that deliverd the jackets to me....
nore can I sue the people that manufactured the sewing machines I used to make them....
nor can I sue the company that made the thread......
nor the buttons.....
nor the zippers.....
nor the sharpie I used to make my for sale sign.....
that is my whole point in this thread. BOOHOO RIAA. Make a product people want and you might actually make even more money.
-
I haven't seen copyrights on leather jackets. But feel free to continue with very stupid non related analogies.
You guys really are ignoring simple facts and attempting to cloud the issue with vagueness. The courts do not have the same problem.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Fishu, if i understand you right, people doing illegal
things is a good for the economy ?
Whereas people who actually pay for the same stuff are
bad for the economy?
Did I say it is good for the economy? no.
However I claimed that the lawsuits by the RIAA are actually counter productive and unhelpful for the cause, when compared to dropping down to the sane level of pirate hunt (go after big known pirates, instead of dropping lawsuits at random on people whos assumed to share files) and going into the internet market instead.
1. I assume most of the lawsuits drops to rather young people, like the students and rather fresh graduates.
2. I doubt they have the money to pay off the large debts caused by the lawsuit, which of many will be "solved" before going to the court, never getting the justice due to fear of even bigger debts in a case which they maybe could've won.
3. Causing huge debts for several young people for laughful reasons might hurt the economy as lowered working power and on the extreme side may even cause more crimes and other negative things.
A young person whos got a large debt, what do you think they might do? Some of them will break.
4. The music industry could create more sales through the active internet sales and not destroy the will of people to buy their products.
Increased sales are known to affect the economy.
I see it more beneficial to drop these insane john doe lawsuits, which serves NO purpose at all and hardly affects the piracy.
I'm surprised if these people won't continue pirating their music after the lawsuit, because with what money are they going to buy a crap anymore?
Thanks to the totally exagerrated fees from the lawsuits directed at the john does!
Mini D,
You are ignoring the simple facts too.
These john doe lawsuits really doesn't serve any purpose, on the contrary.
Copyrights existed before and copyrights were violated before.
Every time someone in the past recorded something off the radio, he was breaking the copyright, but nobody gave a shat.
Every time someone was copying this record to his bud, the copyright was violated, but hardly anyone gave a shat.
The records still sold and nobody gave shat, they only bothered if someone was selling copies.
I'm surprised if you haven't broke copyrights during your life time on multiple occasion.
Even quoting an article without the source could be classified as violation of the copyright.
But how many lawsuits you've seen?
Only in the cases where someone has gone to sell the copied articles.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You have yet to see them do what gunslinger?
Music is being transfered illegaly. Each time this happens, it is a transfer the RIAA should be receiving money on but isn't. That is a very quantifyable loss of revenue. If you can't see this it is because your eyes are closed.
If you download a bunch of music illegally then go out and buy a CD, you can say it was because of the donloading, but it's simply an oppinion and it's purely subjective.
Nobody denies its illegal.
However, the losses are the issue. First and foremost it is a well known fact that illicit sources of music have always been helpful in promoting music (if its any good), harking back to the old boot swaps (sneaker network version of P2P). The RIAA also include overall piracy losses in those figures, a huge portion of which is the grey market which has absolutely nothing to do P2P filesharing.
Lastly, not factored in is the illegal and predatory business practises the RIAA members participate in such as price fixing. Unfortunately the consumer has little power to fight back when the RIAA has the big lawyers and government backing it up.
However, in P2P consumers have found a way to fight back. Albeit illegally - but without guilt.
Hopefully... and eventually, the music industry will fall, then rebuild itself into a more honest business supplying the markets needs instead of what it dictates. I honestly wish those losses were real, as it would hasten the industries downfall.
What we're seeing is Darwinism at work on a market level. And the RIAA is the Dodo.
-
Fact? And how many billions of illegal boot swaps occured weekly? How many did the average person have access too? You are still being blindfully ignorant vulcan... to the point of being incapable of even remotely speaking on the subject.
Fishu, you are arguing another lame point. When all else fails... take it to the court of popular oppinion. The courts are not swayed in the least.
Sorry guys, but you haven't made a single valid point in this thread. Someone presents law, you present oppinion. Someone cites facts, you start to call oppinion fact. It's why you'll get nowhere with this one, and it's why I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any further.
-
HARRRRR! I can buy my movies on DVD, but for series, Netflix, a DVD burner, and inkjet printable DVDs are my friends. I also have all kinds of music that I would never pay for, but didn't mind downloading for the cost of my time & Intardnet connection. Finally, there's Bittorrent which is wonderful for catching TV shows that I missed seeing the night before, or from networks I don't get on my cable tv. Yeah, I'm a bad person and a thief. But somehow, I still manage to get out of bed every morning without hating myself.
And the RIAA are a bunch of lowlife ****s, but that has nothing to do with my "activities".
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
How can they say it is a loss when they didn't LOSE anything? They can't, there was never a possible transaction. What they failed to realize is that people would have stopped stealing for the most part if there was a legal viable means to do so.
I don't get this at all.
You can go to Itunes, eMusic, Napster, Weblisten, MusicMatch, Musicnet, Walmart.com... lots of places... to legally download an mp3. Or you can steal it using P2P.
What you can't do is say that there is no "legal viable means" to download music.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't get this at all.
You can go to Itunes, eMusic, Napster, Weblisten, MusicMatch, Musicnet, Walmart.com... lots of places... to legally download an mp3. Or you can steal it using P2P.
What you can't do is say that there is no "legal viable means" to download music.
Actually I cannot. Because of licensing restrictions I cannot access Itunes, eMusic, Napster, Weblisten, Musicmatch, Muscnet, Walmart.com ... lots of places... to legally download an mp3.
In fact, if I want get the latest music online the only way I can do that right now is steal it using P2P (actually I pefer newsgroups).
What YOU can't do is say that there is a "legal viable means" to download music.
This applies to NZ, Australia, and many other countries where the music industry has a stranglehold on the market.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What YOU can't do is say that there is a "legal viable means" to download music.
I could if I was talking to Gunslinger.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I can only imagine they are referring to the region codes. Other than that, I dont know.
EDIT:
I just feel that if I buy a movie/CD I should be able to copy it all I want. Back in the early 90's I couldnt count how many times I baught the same album because it got scratched. As long as I'm not giving it away to somone else (illegal) than my copy should in fact be mine.
I think the RIAA is as corrupt as they come. All you have to do is look at how they treat radio stations that arent owned by clear channle.
You mean there are other radio stations??? ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't get this at all.
You can go to Itunes, eMusic, Napster, Weblisten, MusicMatch, Musicnet, Walmart.com... lots of places... to legally download an mp3. Or you can steal it using P2P.
What you can't do is say that there is no "legal viable means" to download music.
I was referring more or less to the PRE-legal "Itunes, eMusic, Napster, Weblisten, MusicMatch, Musicnet, Walmart.com... lots of places... " days
-
Just read from the local news that a finnish internet service provider is launching a video on demand service for their customers.
The customers will be able to download a video over the net for 1 to 4.5 euros and it will be usable for a day.
Sounds interesting.. I wonder whether my ISP is going to do the same in the near future.
It doesn't take long to download a full DVD with 8 mbit bandwidth.