said by Frank:People who DVR, record way more then I download. The monthly DVR fee doesn't come close to fairly compensating the copyright owner. If you were to divide the monthly fee by the number of programs the average DVR user records, it would probably be less than one cent per recording. And the whole fee doesn't go towards copyright compensation. No one will ever convince me that there's a difference between DVRing and Bit Torrent. Either way you watch without commercials(not to mention either way you're stuck with the in-program ads). So if I'm a pirate so are DVRers. And I don't come close to downloading what DVRers record. Maybe 5 programs a week I download. People here are always complaining that 150 or 200GB isn't enough DVR hard drive space. It would take me almost a year to fill that if I DVR'd the equivalent of what I download. And I wouldn't use a DVR for archival purposes either. Are DVR recordings stored in an uncompressed format? That would explain the space issue. said by 88615298:
So copyright holders should give out their product for FREE and they will make more money? genius. Let run that by McDonald's "hey if you give out you food for free you'll make more money" Does that even make sense?
no, what this means is that things need to be reasonable in terms of cost to median income.
mcdonalds is a good example. A big mac is tasty because of the combination of 1000 island dressing, and lettuce with hamburgers. Most people who like big macs would rather just go to mcdonalds and buy one because it's fast and CHEAP.
If mcdonalds started selling big macs for $30 each then people would just pirate the recipe and make their own bigmacs at home and mcdonalds would lose money and blame it on recipe pirates.