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  |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
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. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.
I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.
Much like a ringtone.
The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.
First off, again, just because you can't buy it doesn't mean you can just take and use it. Look at TV shows. I like the show Max Headroom and it is NOT available on tape or DVD. Should I just be allowed to copy it for my collection? Legally, NO. That would be taking future profits from the producers of the show. Just because you say you would buy the avatar from Mike Judge and MTV doesn't mean your current use is legal or acceptable.
Same thing goes for ringtones. Verizon Wireless has publicly stated that they do not allow their customers to transfer their own ringtones into their phones because of copyright issues. They make them use their "Get it Now" service. Most other wireless phone makers think the same thing. Why do you think it costs $1-$2 just for a ringtone? The airtime is negligible at best. Even though the ringtone is (in most instances) a midi file, the melody is still the same and the author is still entitled to royalties.
Also, look at the DirectTV case in Canada. At first, the courts ruled that those making decoders for DirectTV were not breaking the law because they thought, as you do, that you cannot steal what is not sold. Later, the Canadian courts reversed themselves. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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.
Just because the avatar is not for sale doesn't mean you can take "COPYRIGHTED" material and use it for yourself. Under your interpretation of the rules, you are in violation of copyright law UNLESS you can prove your avatar is a parody (which it is not.)
You seem to forget, even Fox TV was going after fan websites of the Simpsons and other Fox shows because they claimed it was hurting them not being able to control everything about their shows.
Sure bash those breaking the law but rationalize your own crime.  |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | reply to Fountainhead
Drivel like that still assumes that everyone who downloads a movie would go to the theatre if they couldn't download it. That's not true at all.
Some movies are worth supporting, but others(Gigli, not that I downloaded it anyways), aren't. |
|
k_mumm
join:2001-06-14
Laramie, WY
| reply to Fountainhead
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. |
|
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
 ·Comcast
| reply to Yowzaaah
quote:
Since we're turning to Jack Valenti for all our facts, figures and moral leadership, here's another sage-like piece of brain spew from our favorite octogenarian champion of the status quo
lol.
Definitely the champion of the status quo. |
|
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| reply to Fountainhead
"According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content." _________________________________________________________________________________ _______
Since we're turning to Jack Valenti for all our facts, figures and moral leadership, here's another sage-like piece of brain spew from our favorite octogenarian champion of the status quo:
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
He said this in "expert" testimony to Congress in 1982. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". It's stunning to see just how little the MPAA's arguments have changed in two decades." Compare it to the "Analog Hole" crap they were "fixing" with the DMCA and they're virtually identical (except Valenti was playing on anti-Japanese sentiment then, and today it's anti-pirate sentiment). Of course, the MPAA was unsuccessful in plugging the "VCR Hole" - insufficient lobbying and knowledgeable judges familiar with the use of a VCR stopped them. The MPAA successfully adapted to the changing times and even today in the DVD age sells about 70 million cassettes for rentals and 600 million cassettes for home viewing every year (both numbers are on the decline due to the rise of DVD).
The media content industry is the most LAZY, BACKWARD, STATUS QUO LEGISLATING industry on the face of the earth. AND there is a DIRECT correlation between their tactics and anti-innovative conduct and the "creep" of Copyright protection and length in the last 40 years.
They NEED to be shoved out of the debate. If "stealing" from them is the only way to make them less powerful (i.e. less money in = less money to grease legislators with) then I think it's a WONDERFUL thing.
Avast Yee Mateys! Arr Arr Arr, look at me I'm a PIRATE! |
|
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| reply to dadkins
Ok...
Here...
Since you can't make the connection yourself, I have dug out the info for you...
»www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor···,00.html
Film industry pays dearly for piracy
Richard Wray
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian
The impact of internet piracy could be losing the film industry $460m (£275m) annually within seven years unless the leading motion picture studios and distributors act now, warns a new report.
Informa Media Group believes revenues from legitimate sales of movies over the internet will be more than $870m by 2010. But sales over the internet would be worth $1.33bn if the industry clamped down completely on online piracy.
Adam Thomas, the author of the report, Film on the Internet, said the industry is unlikely to go the same way as the music labels, where online piracy has had a major effect on profits, but the studios should not be complacent.
"It is not going to be the cataclysmic event that the music industry experienced but there are warning signs and it could be a serious issue," he said.
In fact, the prognosis given in the Informa report is not as dire as one given earlier in the year by Deloitte & Touche. A report from the consultants warned that online piracy could cost the top studios up to $4bn annually within the next two years.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to Fountainhead
"The Harry Potter movie released in late 2001, for example, was available on DVD in Asia for about one dollar a copy--only two days after the film debuted in U.S. theaters.
According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."
Where do you see P2P file sharing in that statement? I see where it refers to copying movies in Asia, but nothing about file sharers. |
|
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| reply to KeepOnRockin
said by KeepOnRockin :
Billions? I highly doubt it.
I'd like to see some hard facts and figures for these "statistics of lost revenue"
It's like RIAA claiming music file swapping is costing the industry "billions" in lost revenue. Propaganda
You are sorely mistaken. Pirating has long been a problem and the P2P network has made it easier. (Read Quote below)
The file swapping has most definitely cost the music industry billions of dollars. The record companies are dying. Staffing at major labels is down 80%. Marketing budgets are slashed, tour support is non-existent, and much fewer artists are getting signed...
From »www.cybercollege.com/frtv/frtv009.htm :
The Harry Potter movie released in late 2001, for example, was available on DVD in Asia for about one dollar a copy--only two days after the film debuted in U.S. theaters.
According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom |
|
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| reply to reaver221
I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.
I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.
Much like a ringtone.
The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom |
|
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
·Comcast
| reply to Fountainhead
said by Fountainhead :
On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.
Billions? I highly doubt it.
I'd like to see some hard facts and figures for these "statistics of lost revenue"
It's like RIAA claiming music file swapping is costing the industry "billions" in lost revenue. Propaganda |
|
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| reply to SuperJudge
said by SuperJudge :
Beware of trolls, kids.
Fountainhead does have a point.
- His avatar isn't illegal by his way of thinking
- Sharing copyrighted music/movies/software/etc is illegal.
Ok, so, that's two points. |
|
