how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| |  Re: About time someone helps
said by kados: It's been proven time and time again that downloading files does not hurt the companies That is not PROVED. It is merely alleged. 1 side(content providers) exaggerates the harm done. The other side(I want everything for free anarchists) claims there is NO harm. Both are merely trying to advance their own agendas. The truth lies somewhere in between.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|  | | Re: About time someone helps Yes, with the GAO report that basically says lost sales estimates by the *AAs are bullshit. | |
|  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Neither side can prove harm or the lack of it. RIAA/MPAA/BSA can claim losses, but absolutely cannot prove them at all. File sharers can claim there is no loss, but likewise cannot prove that.
--
So I'm pretty much disappointed with both political parties. Yeah. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: About time someone helps Um... that's about the same as illegal immigrants to the U.S. don't keep pay down for legal working U.S. citizens.. it absolutely does.
If getting something off of BT saves someone from paying the money to buy the actual item, then that's one less "sale" made by a "potential consumer"... that amount of money multiplied by the number of people doing it is the damage and loss that the artists/industry as a collective is losing.
I can run a very quick analysis of what goes down here on BBR for a specific group of users here.. .
there are the users here that make it VERY clear they want to spend less and less on entertainment services.. some down right play it off as it's some sort of entitlement that they should have as to equate is as over the air TV, when it's not. Those people are making it very clear that it's the money they're spending on "garbage" that they simply won't pay.. that group of people shouldn't sit back and state that they're trying it before they buy it because that's pure bull crap. If that person already has a perfectly good working copy of the item, why in the world would that SAME cheapskate with all the nice computer equipment and blank DVDs simply not burn it to dvd (which I'm sure they already do) instead of buying it from the store because "i liked it... "...
it's pretty clear and obvious who the bullshitters are.. and as with any sample study, I'd say a good amount of BBR represents the very argument the industry tries to make.
I also simply don't understand why this constant back and forth on BBR is necessary.. it's the same dang thing, different thread, and fills up about 200 post each time of the same thing said by the same people.
As for the article at hand.. my simple question is "what court is going to allow multiple unrelated defendants with unique and individual evidence against each other get lumped into one case"... that's pure 100% against the constitution. | |
| | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: About time someone helps Not really. There's a big difference between hiring employees and purchasing luxuries.
quote:
If getting something off of BT saves someone from paying the money to buy the actual item, then that's one less "sale" made by a "potential consumer"... that amount of money multiplied by the number of people doing it is the damage and loss that the artists/industry as a collective is losing.
That's the same flawed assumption the RIAA et. al. want everyone to make, that there's a one to one ratio of downloads to lost sales.
quote:
that group of people shouldn't sit back and state that they're trying it before they buy it because that's pure bull crap.
False.
quote:
If that person already has a perfectly good working copy of the item, why in the world would that SAME cheapskate with all the nice computer equipment and blank DVDs simply not burn it to dvd (which I'm sure they already do) instead of buying it from the store because "i liked it... "...
If you cannot fathom why, you should not be arguing either side of the issue.
--
So I'm pretty much disappointed with both political parties. Yeah. | |
| | | | | | | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: About time someone helps Ooh, struck a nerve, did I? Calling me a troll really helps your argument, sure.
And bullshit, you're not talking about one user, you're extrapolating to all users. You're buying into the download = lost sale mantra of the xAA hook line and sinker. And it's just not true.
quote:
I was talking about the person that was the "try before I buy" mentality.. which is complete horse-shit. That should be "try it and if I like it I'll buy"... you care to debate that horse shit attitude? I'll just head you off here.. Try going to the Olive Garden and try their lasagna before you buy it.. if you decide you didn't like the food, do you just get up, walk out, and not pay the bill?
I once went to an Outback steakhouse with my mom and grandfather. The food was so drenched in spice, none of us could stand it. We complained. We left without paying one red cent. None of us has ever been back since, of course. Why would we, since we now know the food is horrible? Maybe they've changed in the many years since then, maybe not.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea that someone might download a movie/game/song/other-copyrighted-work, decide they like it, and then go buy it doesn't mean the entire idea is bullshit. I had a helluva time with calculus, if I had your attitude I would've just given up on it, threw up my hands and declared higher maths to be bullshit.
Here, let me tell you another little story. I downloaded a Telesync of the 2009 Star Trek movie. Guess what? Within the first 30 minutes, I decided I absolutely had to see it in the theater. I even took a friend with me. I showed the download to my dad, and later at his birthday party, my aunt and uncle rented it on netflix to watch again. So now we have one download actually generating minimum of three sales, assuming my aunt doesn't buy the DVD as a christmas present for my dad. These sales simply would not have happened if I hadn't downloaded it.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's not illegal to torrent the latest game or movie. I know it is. I just don't care. If there were a website where I could go pay a buck or two to rent, download, and play a full PC game for a couple days, I'd be happy to use that. Same for movies -- but I don't want to pay a monthly fee for the privilege either, because then it's not worth it, too expensive. Running down to Blockbuster, even with their exorbitant rates, is cheaper than that. 'course, I'd rather the site also have plenty of TV shows. Blockbuster doesn't have much of that, and that's mostly what I get these days.
'til I can do that I'll happily continue on torrenting, buying what deserves buying and deleting that which deserves deleting.
--
So I'm pretty much disappointed with both political parties. Yeah. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: About time someone helps Dude, getting bad food and the RESTAURANT choosing to comp your meal is not the same thing. Further, as what law enforcement would go by, is "did you walk in with the means to pay for the item in the first place".... you walked in with the intention to pay for the meal. Care to try this one again?
I also certainly did NOT lump ALL users today.. try re-reading my original post. I CLEARLY stated the particular group of users that performed a certain action. There is a distinct difference in the point was making when I CLEARLY singled out the users who actually DO purchase the item after the fact. THOSE are the ones who have taken something AND purchased the legal copy.. those who are sampling the video first to see if they DO want to buy it AND already burned a usable quality copy are the ones I'm speaking of. It's simple English - try applying it here.
How's this for a simple fact - YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to download for free pirated material that you do not clearly own. Simple as that. This pioneering anarchist mentality that you and others posses is actually kinda sick. Just because its digital and available on the internet makes this no different than walking into a store and taking the DVD and "trying it before you buy it"..
Just because you downloaded Telesync of the 2009 Start Trek movie and DID have to go see it doesn't make it any more right. The intent of the rightful owners of the copyrighted material has always been that you must purchase your copy. Where are you and others getting this right that you have the self appointed ability to simply go take a free copy of something (the free part comes from you not paying for it) and THEN deciding to go patronize the owner. Your little story doesn't make your position ANY more right. But, in your example, as you're making, then yes, you did not ultimately take money away from the industry as you did pay - thus, that would be the group I DID mention as I stated above here that you CLEARLY have failed to see me talk about.... TWICE now. But it STILL doesn't make it right.
And to say that the sale wouldn't have happened if you didn't download a pirated copy still doesn't make your position any better. You are somehow trying to imply that you and others have this "right" to do something that you CLEARLY know you don't. You're trying to justify the bad behaviour, ie, the ends justify the means. I suppose you'd also like to walk on to a car dealership and drive their cars WITH OUT THEM KNOWING IT OR PERMISSION and your actions alone are okay because you ultimately made a purchase. Try walking onto that lot and simply taking one for a ride with out permission (which THEY DO decide to give people the option to try before they buy) and see where you wind up. I guarantee if you did that, they'd give a rats ass less if you actually did buy the car - you're be in jail for making an end run around their policies and property rights. In the case of the car, before people twist that up into more than it is, the distinct difference is that the DEALER made the decision to try before you buy - but you still have to follow THEIR rules. The movie industry doesn't condone "try before you buy"...
I can and have also said the same about people who take MP3 music.. I'd like to know how many of those people that already have a usable copy ACTUALLY go out and BUY the same version.. I can guarantee you that among the overwhelming majority of people here, the percentage of people that actually do is in the low single digits.
The idea behind entertainment, mostly new release movies, IS that you purchase the item before you watch it. Where do you get the notion that you get to try it before you buy it? .. tell me, simply put, what gives you or gave you that right? Until then, no matter how disappointing the movie one pays for is, that is how it works... plain and simple.
Face it.. you and those like you are trying to make up rules and give yourselves rights that simply don't exist. There is a term for that.. anarchist.
Quite honestly, this subject is boring and should simply have a forum of it's own.. it's boring as hell and no two sides are ever going to agree.
All I've head you really say here is "*I* don't want to..."... guess what kiddo... TOO BAD! | |
|
| |  JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | said by fiberguy:Um... that's about the same as illegal immigrants to the U.S. don't keep pay down for legal working U.S. citizens.. it absolutely does. off topic.. but that also forgets to mention that higher prices would come with those higher wages so you'd probably end up loosing in the long run.
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
|
| |
|
