Why People Pay More For Access To Infringing Content
from the the-way-they-want-it dept
It's kind of funny to see the entertainment industry make totally contradictory statements about cyberlockers and usenet access providers in talking about infringement. On the one hand, they complain about how it's "impossible to compete with free" because "pirates just want everything for free." But, at the same time, they whine about how cyberlockers and usenet services often charge people for access, thus making them commercial enterprises who (according to the industry) "profit from piracy." But those two things seem somewhat contradictory. If people who engage in unauthorized file sharing only want stuff for free, then why do they pay these providers to get access? And if it's impossible to compete with free, then why does it look like these services have successfully done so? Correspondingly, why doesn't the industry open up its own competitors?All of this comes to mind as Glyn Moody points us to an "open letter" that Mark Goodge wrote to UK Culture Minister Ed Vaizey, in response to Vaizey's statement that the blocking of access to Newzbin2 wasn't a big deal, because users should simply go to services that offer "legal access to movie downloads at reasonable prices."
However, as Goodge points out, he knows people who pay more for access to Usenet than it would cost to pay for a competing legitimate offering. And the reason is because their infringing activity has nothing to do with just "wanting everything for free," but wanting more convenience, more selection and fewer restrictions:
The reason people will pay for Usenet+Newzbin is that they want to be able to obtain movies in a format that suits them, not a format which suits the provider. They want to be able to download them and watch them whenever they want, not have to be online in order to stream them (assuming, of course, they’ve got enough bandwidth to stream movies anyway). They want a download service that gives them the same ownership and flexibility as buying DVDs. And they want to be able to obtain the movies they want to see without artificial geographic restrictions.In other words, they're happy to pay... if only the industry would offer it to them in the manner that customers want. This isn't a surprise. For years, studies have pointed out that those who infringe really tend to be unserved consumers, who aren't getting the offerings in the form that they most want it. Smart companies realize that this is a form of (free) market research, and look for ways to better satisfy their customer base.
So, apart from the fact that it simply isn’t true that services such as Lovefilm are a suitable solution, it’s pretty clear that there’s a whole untapped market here for legitimate online purchase of movies via download. People are willing to pay, and willing to pay a fair amount -- provided that what they get in return is what they want.
At the moment, the only people making any money out of this market are those involved in infringement. As long as the movie industry maintains its outdated business practices and carries on treating its (potential) customers as the enemy, that’s how it will stay. Blocking Newzbin may result in a short-term drop in the number of people getting movies via Usenet, but it won’t lead to an increase in people getting them via legitimate means until there are suitable alternatives which provide the same level of convenience and functionality.
Contrary to popular belief, most people who “pirate” movies are not doing it for financial reasons. They’re doing it simply because nobody is offering them a product that they want to buy.
Tragically, the entertainment industry instead looks to politicians and the courts to block consumers from doing what they want, and then pretend it's for consumers' own good.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: access, content, convenience, infringement
Companies: newzbin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think there is a sub-culture of "I refuse to pay for anything I don't have to", but I really feel the American Way is "I will pay for what I want". You see it other places as well including parking and internet access.
Media companies should hopefully learn quickly from these sites and adapt to meet their users' desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.
They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn't about convenience or anything like that, it's about being stupid and not considering all the costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My computer only cost $200 and my internet connection is $20.
$3 to rent a movie? New releases are going for at least $7. No Redbox for this country.
So, if I illegally download 25 movies, I've paid for the cost of my computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But think about this, if AC's right and piracy is getting people to pay $100/m and $1000 initially, how many jobs would be lost if piracy suddenly went away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That may be true if you're implying that the only reason someone would get a computer would be to pirate a single movie.
Or, why get a computer when you can browse the internet on the McDonald's playplace terminal? Yeah, that's really sticking it to Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A) The computer and internet costs are NOT infringement costs, unless you are seriously going to say that the internet and computers are ONLY good for piracy.
B) If your only mode of comparison to seamless downloading and watching of content is to rent a DVD, then my friend, the world has passed you by.
The simple matter is, people already have a 1000 dollar computer and a 100 dollar internet connection for other reasons, so why should they have to spend money on gas and lock themselves into a return commitment when they dont have to! Thats the sticking point, is that people dont HAVE to go to blockbuster and rent a movie anymore because technology has fixed that issue. The market has set the price for digital content extremely low, and the only people debating that are the sellers. Unfortunately for them the laws of capitalism have already told us 300 years ago that that doesnt work, sooooo ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
B) "rent a DVD" for me covered everything from actually renting a DVD to using a legal streaming service. But even the legal streaming service has it's hidden internet costs built into the deal.
People had computers and internet connections. If they paid more (like buying another terabyte external drive) or whatnot, that is all costs directly related to obtaining pirated material.
it isn't free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digging yourself a bigger hole.
That only takes a $20 "obsolete" video card.
Furthermore, a decent Internet connection costs a certain minimum amount of money and there's just no getting around that.
A setup "suitable for piracy" is just the minimum buy in for modern computing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only reason I've known people to upgrade video hardware (aside from gaming...) is because they need to in order to play legal content (e.g. Blu-Ray discs with HDCP). They do not have to do this for "pirated" material, that does not come with such DRM.
and are paying more for their internet connection so they can pirate more.
I have never known anyone like that, and nearly everyone pirates nowadays. People want faster Internet connections so that they don't have to wait two minutes for a webpage to load, or so that they have the ability to play online games or watch Netflix. It's also rather convenient when you don't have to wait hours to download (legally-obtained) software, patches or updates.
If they paid more (like buying another terabyte external drive) or whatnot, that is all costs directly related to obtaining pirated material.
Yes, because the only reason to get a bigger hard drive is to store "pirated material."
Hell, I've got an external hard drive. Know what I use it for? Mainly Half-Life mods. It also stores my music collection - almost all of which is ripped from CD's, LP's, and tapes that I own. Of course, the hard drive also stores backups of my raw music tracks, which can take up a gigabyte per song.
Even if people do use it to store e.g. music and video, there's no reason to believe that it is "pirated" content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is probably one heck of a gaming/home theater rig.
"paying $100 a month for a internet connection"
To get a fat 200 Mbps internet connection, yes, go on.
"so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3."
Actually, I can get a truckload, with no DRM, that I can keep forever (big disks, remember?), but go on.
"They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn't about convenience or anything like that, it's about being stupid and not considering all the costs."
And suddenly you train of though falls apart. I spent all that and have one heck of a gaming rig and one heck of an Internet connection. If I spend half of that on movies, all I would have are movies and nothing to watch them on.
I have a fat computer and Internet connection, and I am the stupid one?
But this raises another interesting point.
Piracy opponents say that piracy causes major damage to the economy and all that. Well, according to you, I spend WAY MORE to watch a lousy movie by being a pirate than I would otherwise. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are no movies on any of them. (I'm not a movie fan.) There are some TV episodes, including Firefly -- which I *paid for* on DVD, but the DVD version absolutely sucks, so I keep that on the shelf and watch the downloaded versions. But not many: I'm not really a TV fan either.
There's a lot of music. But considering that I bought nearly all of it (a) on vinyl and/or (b) on cassette and/or (c) on CD -- meaning that I've already PAID for this content at least once, some of twice -- I'm not particularly concerned about paying for it yet again.
Bottom line? I have lots of other uses for those drives and that computer. The incremental expense of content that I've never paid for (in any format) is tiny, because that content is only a small fraction of what I've got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They are wise ppl who have enlightened themselves into getting a bargain. It isn't about convenience or anything like that, it's about being smart and considering all the costs they won't be having because of crap content."
Fixed for you. Had to do some major overhaul in some parts but sounds perfect now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to fix something, fix your attitude.
As for the others in this thread, my point is only that plenty of people don't consider the costs of their computer and the ongoing internet costs as part of the actual cost of content. Paying for a faster internet connection (so you can download more) is a great example. If you add $20 a month on your bill for it, it's $20 you are spending for content.
What you people did here more than anything was prove the point, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it's free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lies? Misdirection? Dunno dude, I do exactly that and I know a bunch of some crazy nut bastards and dudettes that do exactly the same. Unfortunately we don't drink rum/gin or speak "pirate talk". So I'd guess it's a lie only in your Neverland ;)
I obviously don't consider the costs of my hardware and my connection. Sharing stuff is but a part of the goal. I could spend $200 on pc games instead of a good video card and have the crappiest gaming experience (low quality image AND/OR content) but instead I discover that part of the content is shit and I've saved $120 that I invested on better hardware. Pure win. Hardware manufacturer wins, I win, good game producer wins, crap game producer loses. Do I need to draw to explain to you?
But at least you have clarified things: you think the internet and computers exist only for infringing purposes. Go pass laws forbidding ppl from buying those and to shut down the internet. While you are at it extend the ban to mobile phones as I've download games I own to play on my mobile too (I'm a thief, I've downloaded it! Oh wait, I've already paid for the original). Good luck ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You see, people have spent their $1000 and $100/month (or whatever the numbers) for the convenience they afford to do many things (work from home, research and find information, communicate with family and friends, streaming music, watch porno).
So hopefully it's more obvious to you: watching movies is a small part of that $1100 you're talking about. YYou've fallen into the usual industry trap or assuming everything people do is because of the content.
Keep at it though, you'll get it one day... probably around the time that you don't have such a vested interest in the old ways of doing business anymore :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
or maybe the article is right, we will happily pay money to get what we want the industry just refuses to offer us what we want so we dont give them the money and go elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact I can download TV/Movies/Music does not come into the equations, those are side notes of the actual usage.
So your just a small part of what i can do, and really that is Big Media's problem, the internet has moved you from the front and top dog, to the small dog, you yip and yip for table scraps, and bite the hand that gives them to you. Well the internet and the world has a solution for dogs that like to bite... Old Media I name thee "old yeller" and its time to go to the woodshed....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, my new car, you like it? It's my movies ride. Check out my I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But tricking myself into thinking it's free? First of all, I never claimed it was free. Second of all, you're tricking yourself into thinking that every byte I download costs me $1000 down and $100/mo because it's how much (you assume) I paid for the rig and access, and you somehow seem to think that I pay those amounts for each use.
The fact is, the rig and the access came first. They're an investment into -- guess what? -- Internet access. And among the things I can do with this rig is the ability to download stuff for no additional cost. The more I use the computer and the connection, the more those costs are amortized. So the more free stuff I download, the less it costs. Win/win!
But seriously, I didn't go out and buy a computer so I could download movies without paying for them. Neither did anybody else. Your conclusions are based on a faulty premise and bad logic. We didn't dismiss the cost; we evaluated it rationally instead of drinking your Kool-Aid. We dismissed your claim because it makes no sense.
I own a copy (I know, I'm just leasing it) of Short Time on Laserdisc. Ever heard of it? Probably not. My Laserdisc player has died; I've been unwilling to dent my budget by buying a replacement, though I suppose I should do that soon, before they're no longer available. Of course, I just want the player so I can copy the movies to DVD. Which of course will cost the studios billions of dollars in unrealized profits.
Anyway, I wanted to show the movie to a friend -- and while I'm sure I copied it to DVD before the player died, I can't find the DVD. So I went to Netflix and Blockbuster and Redbox and... guess what? Nobody has it for rent. I went to Amazon and IMDB and discovered something: for Region 1 it was released on VHS (and Laserdisc) only; there's a DVD, but it's only Region 2.
This is a freakin' 20-year-old movie, but it's only Region 2. The purported reason for region coding is to allow the studios to make more money. Tell me: how does not selling the DVD make them money?
You know what I did? I bought the Region 2 disc and a DVD burner. I used the new burner to replace an old one that doesn't burn any more, and I used one of my 5 region changes on that drive and changed it to Region 2 (and slapped a sticker on it). Then I used that drive to read the DVD, and played it on my computer with a composite TV output.
I'm sure I broke several laws by doing this, and if the MPAA catches me they'll tell the courts I cost them at least a million dollars, so would they please fine me twenty million? Because of the poor starving artists that they won't pay a red cent of that money anyway.
I bent over backwards to do right by this one, and it cost me more than downloading the movie would have. Cost more than it should have for an obscure, mediocre 20-year-old movie on DVD. Even if it does have Teri Garr and the best damned car chase scene I've ever watched. (Yes, I've seen the French Connection, before you ask.)
Go ahead, call me a freetard. Tell me to fix my attitude. The studios call me a thief even when I buy the same movie twice in spite of their heroic attempts to prevent it. Who has the attitude problem now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me: simple - if they wanted to sell you that single DVD you really wanted, it would likely cost them hundreds of dollars to do so. If there is no distributor willing to pick up the stuff, if there is nobody willing to do the process to get them made and brought to market (with all the restrictions that exist in each country, regarding packaging, labeling, etc), then why should they be forced to sell at a loss just to make you happy?
It is a Tardian way of looking at things, they should be forced to be in business in your country because you and you alone want the product. How selfish is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn't give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway. That is the Tardian mentality at it's finest. Enjoy it while you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They were not selling it in his market, at any price.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn't give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway.
Just because you cannot buy it means nobody is losing any money, whether you copy it or not.
That is the Tardian mentality at it's finest. Enjoy it while you can.
Oh, dang. I didn't notice you're a troll. Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, let's say the guy doesn't pirate anything, but simply doesn't pay the asking price. In either case, it is a "lost sale." The content holders failed to make money either way, so in that case piracy wouldn't have any impact on their profits whatsoever.
All that has happened is that the content holders prevented a fan from seeing their content, even though it would have cost them nothing to allow that fan to do so. They are doing nothing but stealing from culture. That's as least as much of a "dick move" as piracy. Depending upon how important you think that content is to culture, it's more of a dick move.
Do you honestly think this guy would spend $200-$500 for a single DVD, just to get it into his local market place, in the correct and legal packaging, with the correct and legal language, encoding, and the like?
Nope.
Of course, with piracy, he wouldn't have to - because pirate distributors would be doing all that for free.
Those copies may not have the packaging, but everything else can be done by anyone with a computer and a trivial amount of time on their hands. And they do it without the content holders having to pay them a dime.
Incidentally, it's funny you should mention that pricing - because in some regions (e.g. third world countries), that's about the equivalent of what consumers would have to pay for a legitimate copy of a CD or DVD.
Just because you cannot buy it doesn't give you some divine right to just take a copy anyway.
Well, copyright only exists through the approval of the general public (and exists for their benefit). So if enough people believe it, then it does give them that right. Also, "take" is probably not the right word, since the original product doesn't go anywhere - "make" would be a better choice.
But, regardless of all that, you're still missing the point: if you, as the content producer, are not willing to supply the market with a product at an optimal price point on the demand curve, then you shouldn't be surprised if someone else is. That's what capitalism is all about, and it is primarily what makes a free market better than other economic systems.
Enjoy it while you can.
I'm not enjoying it at all. I'd rather piracy went away, so that more people would focus on open source and open culture instead, and our government wouldn't listen to the constant bitching of whiny content industries who demand government solutions to their own economic incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, perhaps not, for one reason. Because content producers have to compete with piracy, they make their products more valuable and cost less. It's that ol' free market at work again.
In that sense, piracy helps every consumer, even those that will never pirate anything in their entire lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way: I've talked to several artists, content producers, etc. Most aren't so much against piracy, but a few are, and vehemently.
Even the ones who are completely against piracy have no problem with pirating something that isn't in print. Even if they were the ones who released it originally. Why should they? They can't make any money off of out-of-print releases anyway.
In fact, to the degree that I do "pirate" music, that is exactly what I do. There are a few blogs out there (which I won't name for fear of ICE seizures) that do nothing but post obscure, out-of-print material, often from tiny labels that no longer exist. Not one person I've spoken to (even label owners) have any problem with these guys, in fact most think highly of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I think I'm pretty close with that one. How about you save your crap nonsense for articles where it at least fits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Times change. We used to pay for albums once every few months, then we started buying a few songs per month with $1 each, and now we're paying a subscription per month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
If I've waited 2 months to watch Heroes, then I'll watch something else. So when it comes out, and I don't like it, do you think I want to pay for a series that just isn't all that good? Do you think I'll CARE if the producer found a new way to remake it, using more money?
All of that is based on advertising revenue, which the customer never sees anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
The prices of the CDs got cut by 50% here in my country due to use of cheaper material for the boxes and smaller covers and, words from the owner of a music shop, sales skyrocketed. Can you see the relation between getting more for selling quantity? And can you see that digital files have no replication costs? Oh you didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Darn, I have to explain everything to those kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
For digital content the marginal cost *is* zero - that's what the word means. Marginal doesn't mean "the amount something costs including R&D", it means the "the amount something costs to produce after you've *eliminated* R&D."
Perhaps before you begin commenting, you might try to understand the basic terminology. You might then be able to comprehend the arguments made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I'm not sure if should attribute this post to malice or stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
You know, that actually isn't a bad theory. Perhaps Weird Harold has come back to us and let his proverbial hair down in favor of this new iteration.
Either way, I guess since it's all ad-homs and accusations of the most horrific things, we can safely ignore ootb as we did Weird Harold, TAM, Darryl, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
Just do what I have always done: click "report" on ANY post by any of them without even bothering to read it. Its no less than they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I'm sayin'. It's like OOTB is using sock puppets to prove Mike is using sock puppets or something like that. I can't quite grasp the twisted logic myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
If they want to recoup their "sunk (or fixed) costs" they need only give people a reason to spend their money...which they aren't....which is the point of this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about access, Mike, it's producing the content in the first place.
I'm surprised no one has pointed this one out. Sunk costs are sunk. Your customers don't pay them, you do.
You only make money on price vs marginal cost, and that price is only what your customers are willing to pay.
For digital copies, that price is pretty low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smartards!
Like, duh.
Of course, if it's going to work for the long term it'd have to actually work like a pirate site too--no DRM. no licensing bullshit, just easy movies & music & whatnot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smartards!
It could totally be gotten away with.
But it never will....
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick tries to poop this vitriol out so fast nowadays that the editing mistakes have become a regular thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IM MELTING
MELTING
melting
mel....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
You wouldn't have dolby surround. You wouldn't have 3D movies. You wouldn't have gigantic screens. Heck, you wouldn't even have movies.
So...who's getting rich out of who? Or should we just agree that it is a symbiotic relationship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
So you think you're rebelling and making a difference by ripping them off?
Won't change your situation.
You'll still be a worthless, jealous douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
They are so ripped off in their Ferraris. The entertainment industry is dying. Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pathetic Hollywood shills...
By your standards, we can already get things for free and we don't even have to do anything illegal. We can just take advantage of the free market. We can take advantage of the First Sale Doctrine or the long tail. We can choose not to be a sucker and there's not a d*mn thing you can do about it legally.
B*tch and moan all you like.
The current crop of whiners and bean counters can't compete against the back catalog and a glut in content and ever decreasing prices.
Natural market forces have already depressed "legal" prices by 95%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
What, you mean shooting speed balls, getting airtight with Lindsey Lohan, and catching crabs? No thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
"they"?
Now that is the word of a shill. ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Please, don't ever give me one of those cooler lives. I dodged that bullet twice already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: been doing just this for 8 years now..
Oh, and by the way ... as has been explained here countless times, the content is what people want ... how about some access to it?
I was going to call you a troll, but I sincerely believe you are just an entrenched interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the wildwest days are ending
if the content is cheap then the terrorists win
freetards
THEIVES!
its their content you don't get to decide how they shove it up your ass
the pirates providers dont have to pay to make it so they can sell it cheaper, with a better service, and value
*Thought I would get that all out of the way, so maybe the trolls and shills can innovate a little*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care that the content is deemed illegal. All I'm seeing is that I'm a customer, and this service is far superior to what the "legit" industry is willing to do, thus I'm getting more bang for my buck. Aren't I doing what we're all told to do, in seeking savings every chance we get?
What would be perfect would be if there were a single cyberlocker with fast speeds and gobs of storage, that every/most media creators upload to. Users pay for a subscription for high speed download and unlimited access, or go for a free account and a limited selection. Support it with ads, and you still make money off the people who opt for the free account. For every download, the content creator gets an agreed upon amount. So, the better your content, the more popular it becomes, the more money you make.
Yes, you would still have torrents. Yes, there would still be people who will never pay. Yes, there would have to be some sort of auditing system. But the above solution helps everybody and most importantly, doesn't screw anyone over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why does Mike Masnick get so upset when this illegal behavior is taken on by government?
Because he supports piracy.
The end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did he steal your highschool sweetheart away or run over your dog or something?
Or did you make some piece of crap that no one bought and its all piracy fault you cant retire at 30?
Or do you get paid 8$ an hour to make a fool out of yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you read the comment? No? Have you noticed he/she/it is suggesting a model that actually exists but is severely capped by MAFIAA? No? Do I really have to draw to teach you?
So why do you support the aggressive litigation behavior of MAFIAA when it is harming every1 in the process?
Because you are a pedophile and a child raper.
The end.
PS: don't blame me, I used your reasoning ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People here have admitted to owning cars. Therefore, I must own one too, and that Masnick approves of DUI and running over grannies. Oh wait, that would be idiotic, wouldn't it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
I trust that fully explains the flaw of your plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
Site A would go "We have the latest and most up-to-date content, we give you what you want and you're supporting the artists. Site B, though, they're literally thieves, they're the equivalent of the guy selling counterfeit CD's on the street corner".
I want to pay for access to as close to infinite content as is possible. The idea of paying for each individual piece of content, is in my opinion, an outdated idea, given the prevalence of high speed broadband and cheap hard drives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Rikuo: "I don't care that the content is deemed illegal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is, each movie studio would demand more money from the cyberlocker operator than any user would be willing to pay for the whole service. So the licenses would cost them, say, $100 per month per user, and the users would only be willing to pay $20. The studios are just too stupid. They would rather get nothing and pay lawyers to sue, than get a small piece of a big pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also note that this wouldn't actually stop the mass lawsuits. Just my opinion that the media industry should have done something like this ten years ago, rather than let the "pirates" out-innovate them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I also note that this wouldn't actually stop the mass lawsuits.
Right, it would be "take it or sue me".
Just my opinion that the media industry should have done something like this ten years ago, rather than let the "pirates" out-innovate them.
So true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone ought to write this in the sky, because it's ulitmately a truth that gets overlooked by Big Content (in not a huge fan of the term, but it works).
I'm perfectly willing to part with my cash as long as I feel like I'm getting a good value for it. Nowadays I feel like the products I want to buy are getting hobbled with barriers and restrictions. That definitely does not make me feel like I'm getting my money's worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1 song at $1 = bad vaule
20 songs at $1 = better value
The spend is the same its about what you get for it. That is independent of format and convenience.
I've said on td for a long time that I'm willing to pay a reasonable price. The typical td response is that I should not have to pay because of infinate availability - while that may be true I'm still willing to pay, just not willing to get screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, I don't know that small-time independent artists could survive on such a slim margin. 20 songs would be at minimum 2 albums worth of songs, that's going to be a year or two+ of writing, rehearsing, playing live to hone chops and rewrite the parts that don't work, and then the whole recording process... It would be hard to let go of so much work for so cheap for people who will realistically sell less than 1000 downloads every 6 months.
Luckily, I notice that people in general don't consider $1 too much to pay an independent artist. I could even see going as high as $2 a song. Personally, I think independent artists might want to consider marking up songs a little bit, but sell the album dirt cheap. $3-$5 for a whole bare bones digital album would certainly seem fair to me. And as an independent artist myself, my goal is generally to get as much of my music on a person's mp3 player as possible, so it's advantageous to make the album as tempting as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And not to mention there can be more to a product than format, convenience, and quantity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More to your point, if you sell me 1 song for $2 but the whole album for $3-$5 then I will *never* just buy the single. I really don't care if you don't like what I'm willing to pay and I don't care if you need to make more money - sounds like a marketing problem for you rather than a price point problem for me. Feel free to price yourself out of the market but understand that your price is why I'm not buying.
Perhaps I'm less picky or like more vareity than others but I have lots of storage and storage is cheap, so if filling the iPod costs $30K it will never get filled. If filling the iPod costs $1500 then there is a better chance your music might be in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You must be so wrapped up in the industry that you don't actually see the music world.
Ever seen "please buy me CD"?
Ever seen a 2 drink minimum?
Seriously ...
You are a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would love a legit download service
If the media companies would get off their high horse and realize that yes, their shit does stink, and start listening to the demands of the consumer, instead of forcing the consumer to fit within their business model, they could stand to make a ton of money... (netflix anybody?) And to boot, they would save a ton of money on lawyers and litigation. DVDs are expensive, digital copies of a movie are free. And the beauty of this system, is that once I download a movie, it still exists on their servers for anybody else to download without any additional cost for the content company (at least nothing more than the trivial cost of bandwidth).
The sad reality is that we are still just a bunch of cattle to the media companies and they still, for whatever reason, have the power to herd us and drive us in whichever direction they want, usually using the government as their cattle herders. Until there is some sort of social boycott and the consumers began to realize that as a whole, we are much more powerful then the media companies, nothing is going to change anytime soon.
I for one have pretty much quit buying DVDs as I see no reason to still purchase content on outdated physical disks. It also saves the trip to the store/ paying shipping fees, etc. I do subscribe to netflix and love the service as it allows me unlimited access to their collection of content and I can consume it how, when, and on which device I want (for the most part). The biggest downside, they don't offer a "Download Now" button such that I can take the content with me. The second biggest downside is the availability of content which the media companies won't allow (for pointless arbitrary reasons) or want to change some outrageous licencing fee (see above: "shit does stink").
Appendix: DVD - used as a generic term to describe the available technology of physical material which contains the digital representation of the analog and/or digial source material.
/rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can grow apples for free. But there's an industry built on that.
Interesting, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's on par with someone paying $1000 for a fancy ass computer and bunch of hard drives, paying $100 a month for a internet connection, so they can pirate a movie they could rent for $3.
They are idiots who have tricked themselves into thinking they are getting a bargain. It isn't about convenience or anything like that, it's about being stupid and not considering all the costs"
"...my point is only that plenty of people don't consider the costs of their computer and the ongoing internet costs as part of the actual cost of content. Paying for a faster internet connection (so you can download more) is a great example. If you add $20 a month on your bill for it, it's $20 you are spending for content.
What you people did here more than anything was prove the point, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it's free."
By that logic, It's on par with someone paying $20,000 for a fancy ass car and bunch of insurance, paying $500 a month for gas, so they can rent a $3 movie they could 'pirate' for less without going out of your way.
It's all about convenience. Renting your ways is stupid considering all the costs.
You see what you did here more than anything was prove yourself wrong, you are dismissing the costs of obtaining the content, tricking yourself into thinking it's cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The computer? The internet? They could spend half the computers life just downloading stuff (and the other half playing it). Most big file downloaders even buy an extra computer just for downloads and just to playback. The money is spent, like it or not.
If all you were doing was surfing the net, a netbook would do you fine. But a netbook isn't the downloader's tool of choice, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Isn't everyone who uses a computer hooked up the the internet a "downloader"?
When visiting anywhere on the internet, your computer "downloads" a copy of the webpage to your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Stupid downloaders! Pirates! Thieves! Downers! Yeah, that's it. Freetard downers!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, the only two things computers are used for are surfing the net and piracy?
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard in my entire life.
But a netbook isn't the downloader's tool of choice, is it?
Notice that you went from "pirate" to "downloader." The two are not remotely the same.
Every computer user is a "downloader" nowadays. They have to be - otherwise they wouldn't be able to install any software at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandurz: No, sir! I didn't see you playing with your trolls again!
Just thought I'd interject a little humor since things seemed to be getting a little tense in here. Might do a world of good if some of our trolls would learn to lighten up. One can dream, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It even explains how they cook their books to "protect the artists" any accounting program would report them to the IRS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice article!
I think Spotify have cracked it with the music service that's better than piracy, but nobody has done it for movies yet (well, certainly not here in Germany) - iTunes do movie rentals but the selection is meh.
There's a massive gap in the market for a company doing movies-on-demand properly - but I'm guessing it's not likely to happen any time soon due to licensing issues. Shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off base
If there was one digital service who charged a reasonable fee and had access to most types of content, I'd definitely sign up. No question. I can't stand the fact that I have to sign up for and pay for 100 different sources of content as it is right now. Such a pain and so expensive. And even the services I pay for keep changing the rules on me, so I can't stay on top of what device I am supposed to be able to use or not use. Do big media companies actually talk to their customers at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off base
Of course not. They do not negotiate with terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usenet is convenience
[ link to this | view in chronology ]