 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to Fountainhead
Re: I agree said by Fountainhead:Anyone here who complains about actors making too much or crying about how bad the movies are clearly has no understanding about supply and demand. If you think the movies are bad, then I guess you shouldn't be wasting all of your oh-so-precious time downloading it illegally either. Hypocrites.
So according to you, anyone who questions this biased "study" must be someone who is downloading illegally? What kind of logic is that?
There are some people who present high prices or low quality as an excuse for copyright infringement. But others are merely suggesting that there are other possible causes for the alleged "losses" which the cartel questionably attributes to piracy. (There is *some* loss to piracy, but it turns out to be a lot less than claimed when the biased methodology is exposed.)
Even in regard to the "hypocrites" as you call them, it's not an either/or dichotomy where a movie must be either worth full price or not desirable at all. In reality, there are often mismatches between asking and offering price, and this is a very common reason for piracy.
For example, smuggling appears whenever taxes artificially inflate the price of a product (cigarettes across borders for example). The situation of the entertainment industry is like this in principle. The artificial monopoly privilege introduced by copyright law in its current form distorts the market and piracy naturally appears to fill the gaps created.
Watch for fallacies of your own before lecturing about economics. |
|
| reply to Capharnaum
FINALLY! Somebody says it! Most pirates wouldn't purchase if they couldn't pirate. They'd just not pirate. No losses there (except the tax revenue on the blank media that the governments would lose). |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Slacker44
A lot of people who copy or download movies do so for one reason... because it is FREE or nearly so.
The assumption that a copy equals a lost retail sale has always been fatally flawed, whether it be in Music, Movies, or software.
Simply put: If copying or downloading was let's say PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE it doesn't mean that Hollywood's profits would soar by hundreds of millions. It means that people would just make do with much less JUNK then they have now.
In other words, if someone doesn't want to spend $19.95 on a DVD they aren't going to do it! Just because they were able to download a copy or burn a copy doesn't mean that they ever were going to pay that $19.95.
It's always been, and will continue to be, a fatally flawed assumption.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
|
|
| reply to thender2
Theft is theft no matter how ou put it. |
|
 thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | said by rachelsfx:Theft is theft no matter how ou put it. Ignorance is ignorance no matter how strict, or morally uptight you attempt to sound.
It's nice to see you brought a full, fitting arguement to the table too. Good job.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
| reply to rachelsfx
Pay like my parents did? They didn't have DVD players or VHS players back then. Before the late 70's nobody owned a movie they could watch at home--unless you were super rich and had your own home theatre. How did the studios survive for so many years and keep producing new movies without that source of revenue? |
|
