Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by Asgaldh, Nov 20, 2008.
Looks like they aren't giving up without a fight...
It's been posted earlier in this thread... AFACT are required to exhaust all options in the legal process before attempting to get legislation changed in their favor. While the original court cases intent may have been to set a precedent / scare others into submission, the true purpose of the exercise is to tick the legal box so they can legitimately lobby for laws to be changed. They are already half way there with the ACTA agreement, the iTrial is the other half of the equation which aims to prop up a dying monopolistic content distribution model.
Remember IP infringement is costing 'them' trillions (1 download = 17k lost sales). It could be argued that IP infringement recently caused the US to lose its AAA credit rating and was integral to the GFC and the European sovereign debt crisis.
What is this one element of the case that they are arguing over?
the technical term for this is "bullshit". it works on the assumption that every download equates to a foregone sale. nice idea guys, but I download because I can - not because I would have paid your ripoff prices for a movie or software title otherwise.
I take it that you are trolling with those fictious comments?
Well, the first number, while inflated, is the idea - that is, A download is a lost sale.
Debatable - as I know that if I didn't download somethings, I would not have brought them when they because available for sale in Aus.
The second I could see someone arguing for, even though it is complete crap.
IF I was going to try to argue the point, I would start with the GFC was caused by all people being deemed equal. Because everyone should be equal, US banks were given incentives to give loans to everyone, because everyone is equal, even if some of those people would have no way to pay back said loan. as an extension of everyone being equal (and now having no money, as they have huge mortgages) people feel that they should be able to have everything else, as xyz has this <insert dvd/music album whatever> already and they should too.
Could it be argued? Yes. would it stand up in court?
We will see.
It has already been established that is not the case.
Just BS figures to overinflate the argument's of the likes of AFACT, MPAA and the RIAA.
Not by ppl pirating movies, music etc.
Not by a long shot.
Try greedy business types running Ponzi type scams. i.e. Madoff.
only if you assume that my looking at a picture of a Ferrari online is a lost sale too.
In alot of ways Piracy helps sell the product. I know it may sound stupid, but alot of users Download content, to see whether it is worth buying. Basically like kicking the tyres before you buy the Camry
It also helps with publicity, if more and more people download, then word of mouth spreads that its a good movie/series/singer, and eventually,it will reach thousands/Millions of users that dont download/Cant, and will buy the product.
I know it seems stupid, but i dont see how it harms the industry, geez, look at the latest harry potter, It still managed to make hundreds of millions in its first few weeks :|
Why do people think I agree with the idea that piracy = lost sales?
if all the music/movies/tv shows industry thought this way then yes they would have "some" lost sales but more people would of heard of something they never otherwise would have.
take this for example i heard of the tv show "game of thrones" and didnt have any idea what it is so i got a friend to explain it for me and i liked the idea so i then got the series off the the net. I then liked it that i went out and brought it from the store when it came out on DVD...
Is your sarcasm detector faulty? I assumed the comments you quoted (and the GFC bullshit) were exaggerated enough such that my opinion of AFACT, their tactics & justification was obvious.
if it's a recurrent issue then can I suggest you start phrasing your point of view more clearly.
I download things to get an idea if its any good before I go spend $30-$100 on a game/movie/album/whatever, because most stores won't return things if I say I didn't end up liking it.
If I download something and I don't like it, I delete it. Why waste the space?
If it's good, I go and buy it because I've judged it to be worth my money. And then I tell my friends/coworkers/interwebz about it, and they give it a go.
Piracy has decreased sales, but they're pretty much complaining that they're not gettings wads of cash from people who buy new CDs/DVDs/Games/etc on whim anymore.
This is the crux of the matter, in my opinion, and why this issue just won't go away or be resolved.
If you commission work from someone, you usually have to pay them even if they do the work within spec, but "do a shitty job" (make bad software, build a poorly finished house, etc), because so many things like "looks good" are a matter of opinion.
Movies / shows, etc, are in many ways, works of art, and as such, viewing is itself the privilege that you pay for (at least legally). This is how the movie producers see things. They expect to be paid even if they do shitty work, and to be paid very well / make more movies if they do a good job.
Mass consumers, on the other hand, are naturally entrenched in a 1 coin = 1 bar of soap thought process. The vast majority of our day to day transactions work this way, and "returning something that wasn't what it claimed to be" is a consumer right on say a toaster. We can return a toaster that only makes burnt toast just fine.
Can we do the same with movies? If we could return all movies we don't like, would we bother pirating any more?
I believe pirating was an inevitable by-product of the nature of commoditized art - movie companies have the attitude of once viewed, it's done and no refundsies, and what you've described just there is the natural market reaction.
How can you make an informed choice on whether to spend your money on something or not without viewing it? 30 second trailers are nothing like the movies they represent, in almost every case. How can you view something without viewing it? Maybe we should ask the cat.
I liked a movie (Ronin) so much, I now own 3 copies of it. 1 DVD and 2 Blu Ray.
Admittedly one Blu Ray version purchase was a total accident as I'd forgotten I owned the movie already.
I agree with the idea that movies are an artform and that there are no refunds if you go to view it and don't like it.
The stick-in-bullshit figure of $17k of dollar lost per download done. Where the hell do these people come up with this crap? Australian Treasury Employees banging drums to make calculators go beep?
but is it alive or dead? tell me dammit!
Well, it's both
Movie producers are physicists and they don't even know it!
the trouble is that copyright or IP for that matter does not only influence digital media.
You get a verdict on copyright it is sure as hell going to influence IP in some way, shape or form.
If anyone still reading this thread has not watched megan clarkes's national press club address from 2009, i advise you do it.
Go ask a farmer if they are paying more for industry compliance these days to new authorities.
Just so people know, the way you have quoted that line makes it look like I said it. I did not, the line was quoted from someone elses article.