saltydogmn
join:2002-08-31
Saint Paul, MN
|  reply to Fountainhead
Adapt or die, idiots!
First off, when any industry says it is losing money to piracy, it is lying. What is really happening is that their business model is failing, and they wish to turn back the clock, to keep their position as the sole source of whatever product they are foisting upon the general public.
Instead of "losing money", think of it as every file traded - be it an mp3, a movie, or software program - as a "potential income enhancement event" that will not occur. For example, how many of you know someone who uses Photoshop, yet did not pay for it? Possibly including yourself, perhaps? Do you honestly think it is even worth $699US for it, just so you can join PS threads on Fark?!? Yet, every one of those people is considered a "loss" of $699US for Adobe. I would hazard a guess that less than 1 percent of people would buy it, if that was the only way to get it. No way can they claim the other 99% as a loss, since they would have never paid for it in the first place.
What gets me so angry is how some people can actually stand up for these lowlife scumbags; "...staffing at major labels is down 80%"..." Hey, the staffing at the local home ice delivery company is down 100%! Same for the local buggy whip manufacturer, and the Edison Phonograph plant, and the coal furnace supplier, etc. Guess what? Their time was up, and soon it will be for you, too. Your monopoly is finished, guys and gals. Time to give your customers what they really want; this would preclude suing them (unless you're SCO), since there are a LOT of us that would pay you good money for digital content, as long as we can use it the way WE see fit, NOT YOU. Get with the program, please.
As far as the **AA's go, they still have a chance to move into the 21st century, and actually innovate. They can do so willingly, or we can drag them along, kicking and screaming all the way. If they can't adapt, they will die, and I'll dance on their graves when it happens. (While jamming to the tunes on my Archos Jukebox, and yes, it goes to eleven!) |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to FutureMon
Re: Dag
Never mind  |
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
| reply to davebenham
said by davebenham  :
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground.
I hope the remains of Black Isle doesn't try to sue my a$$, I don't have any Canadian money anymore.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C |
|
davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
1 edit | reply to ghostpainter
Copyright laws generally do not give the holder complete control over their creation. Copyright laws were devised to guarantee rights of ownership for publishers. However, in conjunction with the rights of the publisher, the rights of the consumer are also recognized and addressed under a legal doctrine called fair use. Fair use exists as a necessary counter-force to copyright law because many recognize the proliferation of copyrighted ideas and material cannot readily take place in a society if publishers exercise draconian control over their material as you suggest they have a right to do. Fair use attempts to reconcile copyright law and the first amendment right to free speech.
And since you asked me to prove you wrong, here you go. Fair use regularly protects parody as a method of expression. Parodies often use likenesses and other copyrighted material to poke fun and make social statements. Look up Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music sometime, it's a supreme court case that recently dealt with parody. I might also suggest looking up "fair use analysis" sometime.
Incidentally, the fair use doctrine explicitly states economic impact is one of the factors in determining copyright infringement, so you are wrong in your statement that "Economic impact is an irrelevant argument."
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground. |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | reply to Fountainhead
When the Movie Industry starts selling SVCD's and CAM's of new movies around their release date, I'll start buying them. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to sivran
said by sivran :
Another perspective...
How much of that 8 bucks goes to the studio that produced the movie? Really, how much?
How much of that 8 bucks, or less depending on when and where you see it, goes to overhead--distribution costs, etc.?
Most of it. When a movie comes out for the first couple of weeks, 90% goes right back to the distributor or studio. The remaining 10% goes back to the home office of the theater company to pay for bookers (those whose assign movies to theaters) and other "national" costs.
As the weeks go by, it goes to 80/20, then 70/30 and so on until a film becomes a flat rate like $500/week.
The theater itself has to make ALL of its operating costs from the concession stand. Not one cent of the ticket price goes to the theater itself. |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to reaver221
Another perspective...
How much of that 8 bucks goes to the studio that produced the movie? Really, how much?
How much of that 8 bucks, or less depending on when and where you see it, goes to overhead--distribution costs, etc.?
Now how much of the price of a download could potentially go to the studio? Studios have websites already, the overhead would be minimal to open up (and maintain) a download section. A lot more, I'd think, as websites don't require truck drivers, ushers, or clerks.
--
Think Spyware's bad? TCPA is worse. Fight it!
Kerio 2.1.5 - My favorite firewall (Download link updated!) |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | reply to Fountainhead
Just another made up report that doesn't take into account the economy for one thing and just assumes like others have said that everyone just downloads the movie without seeing it in the theaters or buying the DVD. |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
1 edit | reply to guitarzan
Nah...I'm a 1337 h4x0r p|r8:
Red Bull and Gin is as good as it gets,
I'm seeding 12 torrents and running freenet. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA | reply to Yowzaaah
roflmao yo ho ho an a bottle of rum
fire up my p2p proggy an download me some  |
|
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
1 edit | reply to k_mumm
said by k_mumm :
Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.
Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water.
Damn straight.
I just sent Mattel a check for $1500 as an out-of-court settlement.
They were suing me because I had a Magic 8 Ball webpage.
Their grounds were that they suffered product market share "dilution" and loss of income due to my fraudulent use of their products' likeness.
Nevermind the fact that I wasn't using a pic of their product. I was using a real 8-ball off a pool table that I had modified into an animated GIF with a ? in it. Nevermind the fact that their product only had 20 answers, and mine had over 50 - out of which the only two that were the same were "Yes" and "No".
You can be sued for anything at any time. It's only a matter of how much money you have to throw at lawyers in your defense. Every single person who uses an avatar that is an image of someone else or someone elses work is at risk of being sued.
Imagine someone has an image of daffy duck as their avatar. They go around and post all sorts of lewd comments or are just generally up to no good with their attitude on boards all over the internet. I'm sure many of us know or have met in the past people who fit that description quite well.
However unfortunate it may be, some people may actually think that the person who posted those things was in some way affiliated with Warner Brothers, and file suit against them (Warner Brothers) for themselves or their children having been subjected to "whatever". That is Warner Brothers case against the copyright infringer, and they would be likely to win their case for damages.
Laugh now, but it could happen, if it hasn't already.
- FM
--
DCExec Member, Member of 'StarFire Seven' & Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
|  reply to Logan 5
said by Logan 5 :
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong.
That is why RIAA and the MPAA are trying to overturn the Beta laws of the 70's as well....they want to make you taping on a VCR from a TV Illegal as well.... |
|
Logan 5
Wondering what happens next..
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to davebenham
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong. |
|
z28kindaguy
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Brooklyn, MD
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to xdeadhead
said by xdeadhead :
netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
Word to that.
--
Join Team Discovery today!|12.5 Ghz of Crunching Power. |
|
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| reply to ghostpainter
said by ghostpainter :
said by reaver221 :
said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?"
Why is that so hard? A simple enough question, Why is that so Hard?
Because businesses are about making money. As much as high quality, downloadable $2 movies would rock, it's not going to happen. Businesses don't lower their prices just to be nice. |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
| reply to reaver221
said by reaver221 :
said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?"
Why is that so hard? A simple enough question, Why is that so Hard? |
|
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| reply to ghostpainter
said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?" |
|
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard??? |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | reply to Deathsadvoca
netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
--
I am not Herbert. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.
I heard that argument before. "My downloading this movie doesn't cost the movie industry any money. If they began selling movie downloads, I will gladly pay them a fee."
said by Fountainhead :
On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.
If pirating is costing the industry billions, why is it that the cold hard facts show that more people are seeing movies this year than last year and that the overall amount taken in for movies every week is higher than movies per week a year ago? Please don't spread lies easily crushed by reading about the weekly box office on cnn.
said by Fountainhead :
Go ahead... continue down this path and fight for it as if you are entitled to copy movies and share them... and in the end, these industries will crumble...
According to sales the industries are doing better.
said by Fountainhead :
Congratulations... you win.
Well at least you got one thing right in your mindless rant. |
|
