Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Losing customers
Maybe it's because pirates actually buy more music and movies than regular people.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Morac  :Maybe it's because pirates actually buy more music and movies than regular people. That's like saying embezzlers have bigger checking accounts. Well sure because they are funding them with stolen money. |
|
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Edmonton, AB
 ·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I think they'res alot of people out there who buy movies/music and pirate. It would be financially impossible for most people to have all the music/movies they want. Wouldn't be suprised if people who really like music, buy what they can (their most favorite stuff) and pirate the rest. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :That's like saying embezzlers have bigger checking accounts. Well sure because they are funding them with stolen money. Actually it's nothing like that at all. People who embezzle money have larger checking accounts because it's filled with stolen money.
If I had stated that people who pirate music have larger music collections, then that analogy would make sense.
What I stated was that pirates actually buy more music (legally), which is a plus for the recording industry. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
3 edits | reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by Morac :Maybe it's because pirates actually buy more music and movies than regular people. That's like saying embezzlers have bigger checking accounts. Well sure because they are funding them with stolen money. WRONG!
Has it ever occurred to you that many p2p people use it to SAMPLE MUSIC BEFORE THEY BUY IT?
That's what I do!
Rather then pay 18 dollars for a CD, I download an MP3 of it to see if it's WORTH buying. If it is, then I buy it and convert it to FLAC (for my computer) and/or 256K MP3 (for my player). Most p2p downloads are only 128K, and despite what the RIAA whines that's crappy quality!
If I don't like the CD I delete the files. If I only like one of two tracks then I buy those in 256K MP3 form from Amazon.
But I guess that makes me a crook in the eyes of the industry I help support-and in your opinion too!
RIGHT? |
|
hihi
join:2007-05-06
Port Orange, FL
|  said by qworster :said by BF69 :said by Morac :Maybe it's because pirates actually buy more music and movies than regular people. That's like saying embezzlers have bigger checking accounts. Well sure because they are funding them with stolen money. WRONG!Has it ever occurred to you that many p2p people use it to SAMPLE MUSIC BEFORE THEY BUY IT?That's what I do! Rather then pay 18 dollars for a CD, I download an MP3 of it to see if it's WORTH buying. If it is, then I buy it and convert it to FLAC (for my computer) and/or 256K MP3 (for my player). Most p2p downloads are only 128K, and despite what the RIAA whines that's crappy quality! If I don't like the CD I delete the files. If I only like one of two tracks then I buy those in 256K MP3 form from Amazon. But I guess that makes me a crook in the eyes of the industry I help support-and in your opinion too! RIGHT? Not all filesharers are poor...Most of us can only afford what we have in our pocket money. Usually not a whole lot to buy everything.
We spend more money on hardware upgrades then we do on software or digital material. We literally spend all our money until we have nothing. That's what the riaa,mpaa cannot comprehend. They are sue-happy, trigger-happy. They use fear to control us and its not working. How about a love based form of control that says ok you can share whatever you want as long as you keep buying our stuff? |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Theoretically, if you pirate something that you wouldn't have paid for you've hurt no one... Indeed, in such a situation no one is worse off: you get whatever marginal enjoyment the pirated product gives, and the record company wasn't going to get your money anyway.
The problem with this is that there's really no way to prove that you wouldn't have paid for it if piracy wasn't possible, because if you would have paid for it, then the record company is worse off, the infamous "lost sales" numbers are almost certainly overblown, but aren't $0 either... |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to qworster
Indeed so.
While not the specific kind of copyright infringement discussed most often, anime music videos using copyrighted songs are technically infringing. A couple of them did, however, directly lead to my purchase of a Nightwish CD. 
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... |
|
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | i believe you will find that your example is legal under FAIR USE acts.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
angles
| reply to hihi
leeching
Leeching is the problem (that's one way to look at it).
If everyone is forced to "share" on a 1:1 basis, then it's more like time-shifting. In other words, you essentially have to buy things to share, there are no "broadcast"-like p2p technologies -- i.e. -- no leeching.
Scaring people away from sharing-oriented networks has led to a legal environment which creates a strong incentive to leech. This creates a broadcast environment where there are fewer targets to take down. But what it seems these folks are now discovering is that these broadcast environments CAN'T be taken down, given the amount of money the entertainment industry or their representatives have at their disposal.
Sure, things are possible -- all kinds of things are possible -- but is there enough money to implement it, or is it just throwing money down the drain because there isn't enough money to actually ensure a successful outcome (sounds like Iraq a little bit). Wishful thinking in other words, that you could eliminate file sharing on a global level without a significantly larger investment than you can afford.
In any case, leeching, it seems to me, is more problematic ethically, because it's one person sharing something with many, many other people. Leeching mirrors the music industry's formula (i.e. quantity of sales required to actually make money on an artist) and, it would seem to me, that a leeching model is more destructive than a sharing model, because in a sharing model, at least the idea that you can't get "something for nothing" is reinforced, whereas in these unofficial broadcast networks, the idea becomes that music isn't really worth anything and that why pay for it when you can just get it for free? In this way, all music and other multimedia gets devalued, and only gets viewed as something that is or should be free. This is wrong. It creates absolutely no incentive for artists to do anything (in theory, again). Some artists are able to rise above it, so that just goes to show ya...
A sharing consciousness could drive sales, it could theoretically offer a reverse communication channel (i.e. feedback) about things like eco-friendly album jackets, DRM, and much more. It could build closer bonds between artist(s) and fans.
I consider these just broad conceptual ideas, rough approximations, so to speak. Certainly the idea of sharing things (e.g. I rent a movie, my friends come over and we watch it together) doesn't hurt anyone, and strikes a better balance. There are some people who might seem like morons who would scream and shout that everyone of your friends that comes over needs to have rented a copy of the movie or else you need to go through the red tape of opening up a movie theatre and then charge admission (of course, they'll only scream and shout this stuff for you if you can afford their fees, which probably makes them anything but morons). The morons are the ones who pay their fees.
I think the push towards a "broadcast" environment with lots of leeches makes it strategically easier (in theory) to "take it down", but it's probably wiser to have things self-regulate so that the best places to hang out require significant sharing but also offer significant rewards for that sharing. Of course, these types of places are easier to infiltrate and take down, so people move to the broadcast-type networks (e.g. turning off sharing and downloading from places that don't require it).
The heretofore big spenders on unnecessary and strategically blunderous anti-piracy services are probably finding out that it's the unofficial broadcast networks they can't take down, and the more sharing-oriented networks they get taken down, the worse the broadcast problem becomes. Because, on balance, the sharing-oriented networks require more input from the individual file sharer -- I mean, this doesn't absolve them from any responsibility, but this type of situation is more balanced, more workable than the growing chasm of unofficial broadcast-like filesharing networks and the legitimate services, many of whom are technology-bound and revenue-paranoid to too great of an unnecessary degree, negatively influencing their ability to provide anything to actually get excited about. If your customers can't get excited about your entertainment product or entertainment service, you have a little problem. |
|
