"If don't like my product, then don't take it without permission."
Your statement is nonsense. If people didn't like your product (i.e. they'd actually heard it and disliked it) they wouldn't bother taking it. But if they took it because they'd never heard you before, this is an opportunity for you to make a fan. If they took it because they had heard you before, this too is an opportunity for you to keep a fan interested in you. Fans you like your music and also like you will give you money one way or another. People who think you're a dick (might as well stay anonymous at this point) won't bother.
I'm sure that sounds good when you repeat it to your self, but what you're actually saying is they ought not to be able to profit from FREELY DISTRIBUTED content they haven't paid for. But can you actually explain why? Given that the networks only benefit from this service, at no cost to them, why do they deserve any extra money?
"What's your excuse for not understanding the concept? DUH?"
I understand it fine, I wasn't the one misusing it. The comment you described as "sort of FUD", was not. It was humorous hyperbole that went over your head. Simple really.
"I am not trying to "vilify" anyone, merely to understand the issues at play."
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but the vilification of copyright infringers in general.
"Just because someone pays a lot for other content, does not in and of itself make infringing copyright through illegally downloading content defensible legally or justifiable ethically, it seems to me. They are two separate issues. It seems a logically flawed argument; as if saying a person who buys ten cars is entitled to steal one every once in a while."
There are a lot of hang-ups about supposed "justification" of piracy in critical comments here, but most of the time it's not justification at all, simply an explanation of the facts. But the point I was making is not that buying some content justifies pirating some other content, but that if you attack people who download your content, you may well be attacking your fans, customers and potential customers. It's very unlikely your actions will get more people to pay up. so you may well end up with fewer people giving you money as a result. If you're in this business to make money, you should carefully weigh up that risk and decide if it's worth it. The view may be great up on a high horse but the income isn't.
And the car analogy is a common but terrible one. Comparing scarce physical items with non-scarce digital data simply doesn't work economically or logically.
"It is also true, is it not, that downloading pirated content, irrespective of what the studios do or do not do, _ensures_ that artists don't get _any_ compensation from the consumer, isn't it?"
No, that is demonstrably false.
Studies have repeatedly shown the people who download the most infringing material are also some of the highest spenders on content. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but it may make them choose to pay less.
Similarly many who download simply can't or won't ever pay. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but may make them chose to stop listening or watch an artist's material, and that helps nobody. Obscurity is a bigger threat than piracy.
And most people here can tell stories making purchases based on first seeing content for free. People pay to see live performances of a band because of what they pirated. People go to the movies to see something they just watched on their computer because they enjoyed it so much, or it was simply what their friends were going to see.
Call that piracy apologism if you want; I just call it reality.
Oh, and consult your dictionary. Piracy is not stealing. The two are quite different.
"Are you seriously suggesting that TD is an anti-piracy blog?"
Nothing in the comment suggested that, so why would you even suggest it? Oh that's right, it's because you think you're clever...
"Instead of trying to get the victims to change their ways (when they have no duty to do so)..."
Currently they are falling grossly short of meeting customer demand. If they won't change their ways, they will go out of business. This is a simple economic fact. We have no duty whatsoever to give them any money if we don't want to. You can bleat about piracy all you want, but that won't actually make customers happy.
"...why don't you guys focus on getting the lawbreakers to stop violating other people's rights."
At this point, the "lawbreakers" massively outnumber those desperately trying to enforce it, probably by several orders of magnitude. At what point to you conceded that the law might actually be wrong, and simply does not match up to what technology has made so easy and commonplace and what customers want?
"I wouldn't blame Mike if someone violated his rights. That would be disgusting."
Mike's rights are different to Mike's government-granted monopoly privileges. Don't confuse the two, they are not equal.
"You don't need movies and music."
For a minute there you sounded like you were trying to convince everyone they must pay for music and movies. Now you say we don't need them. That is not a good sales pitch. The people actually trying to make money this way must cringe when people like you make such misjudged comments. I don't actually disagree with your sentiment, but it doesn't help your case one bit.
"Just like in the real world, if you don't like someone's offerings, you don't have to buy it. If it's not available, you don't get it."
Sorry, in case you missed it, in "the real word" these things are available anywhere and any time. And in what other industry would someone claim "If we won't provide it, you can't have it"? Competitors would laugh all the way to the bank.
"Pretending like the internet makes all the wrongdoing OK is just disgusting."
I don't recall anyone making such a ridiculous claim. That one came straight from your head. However pretending the internet hasn't completely changed the way customers want their movies and movies delivered to them is equally boneheaded.
"Unfortunately, Masnick complaining about the settlement dished out to a pirate kid that lies in court...
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy."
Unfortunately, the settlement dished out to a pirate kid that lies in court is also not a way to reduce piracy. In fact an organisation that gloats about financially ruining someone's life out of pure spite is a good way to turn people off giving that organisation's member companies a single penny in the future.
"Actually, it is much less prevalent than it was."
The record labels, their lobby group, and a large selection of politicians are claiming the exact opposite, and demanding even more laws be introduced. Are you wrong, or are they? You can't both be right. Please clarify your position.
"If the site is dedicated to infringing activity..."
This is one of the stupidest phrases associated with the war on websites, and is typical word twisting by copyright maximalists. The dictionary says the word dedicated means "wholly committed to something, as to an ideal, political cause, or personal goal", or "set apart or reserved for a specific use or purpose". This simply does not describe any website I've ever seen. Until someone launches a website that specifically bans non-infringing activity, there is no such thing as a site "dedicated to infringing activity".
"They just got nailed for another 22 million dollar fine."
They just got "nailed" for a fine equivalent to less than 20 hours worth of their profit earnings. It's the equivalent of a decent speeding fine. Try to keep a little perspective.
"I was simply informing you that there will never be a world where all movies and music are free."
You informing us of something everybody here already knows? How nice of you...
I will always be happy to pay to see quality movies in a quality cinema. I will always be happy to pay to see a band I like, or buy their physical merchandise.
But paying for infinitely copyable digital files? Probably never again.
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor gatekeepers
Your statement is nonsense. If people didn't like your product (i.e. they'd actually heard it and disliked it) they wouldn't bother taking it. But if they took it because they'd never heard you before, this is an opportunity for you to make a fan. If they took it because they had heard you before, this too is an opportunity for you to keep a fan interested in you. Fans you like your music and also like you will give you money one way or another. People who think you're a dick (might as well stay anonymous at this point) won't bother.
On the post: Crime Inc. Produces Thoughtful, Nuanced Episode About Piracy (Haha, Just Kidding! Cue Scary Music)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor gatekeepers
Customers are the judge of that, not you, and it sounds like they've spoken.
On the post: Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It
Re: Re: Re: Uh, creators are voters too
On the post: We Ask The Supreme Court To Clarify If It's Legal For Virginia To Bar Techdirt From Filing Freedom Of Information Requests
Re: Re: Re:
So do you literally do nothing expect what's explicitly covered by your job title? What is your job title?
On the post: The Aftershock Of Stupidity: Lendink Reopens Only To Receive Trolling DMCA Notices
Re:
So can we expect an apology for this any time soon?
On the post: Court Says You Can't Innovate If It Would Negatively Impact NBC's Business Model
Re: Re: Corporate Welfare.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
I understand it fine, I wasn't the one misusing it. The comment you described as "sort of FUD", was not. It was humorous hyperbole that went over your head. Simple really.
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Re: Re: Confused
Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but the vilification of copyright infringers in general.
"Just because someone pays a lot for other content, does not in and of itself make infringing copyright through illegally downloading content defensible legally or justifiable ethically, it seems to me. They are two separate issues. It seems a logically flawed argument; as if saying a person who buys ten cars is entitled to steal one every once in a while."
There are a lot of hang-ups about supposed "justification" of piracy in critical comments here, but most of the time it's not justification at all, simply an explanation of the facts. But the point I was making is not that buying some content justifies pirating some other content, but that if you attack people who download your content, you may well be attacking your fans, customers and potential customers. It's very unlikely your actions will get more people to pay up. so you may well end up with fewer people giving you money as a result. If you're in this business to make money, you should carefully weigh up that risk and decide if it's worth it. The view may be great up on a high horse but the income isn't.
And the car analogy is a common but terrible one. Comparing scarce physical items with non-scarce digital data simply doesn't work economically or logically.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Confused
No, that is demonstrably false.
Studies have repeatedly shown the people who download the most infringing material are also some of the highest spenders on content. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but it may make them choose to pay less.
Similarly many who download simply can't or won't ever pay. There is nothing to be gained by vilifying them, because it won't make them pay more but may make them chose to stop listening or watch an artist's material, and that helps nobody. Obscurity is a bigger threat than piracy.
And most people here can tell stories making purchases based on first seeing content for free. People pay to see live performances of a band because of what they pirated. People go to the movies to see something they just watched on their computer because they enjoyed it so much, or it was simply what their friends were going to see.
Call that piracy apologism if you want; I just call it reality.
Oh, and consult your dictionary. Piracy is not stealing. The two are quite different.
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing in the comment suggested that, so why would you even suggest it? Oh that's right, it's because you think you're clever...
"Instead of trying to get the victims to change their ways (when they have no duty to do so)..."
Currently they are falling grossly short of meeting customer demand. If they won't change their ways, they will go out of business. This is a simple economic fact. We have no duty whatsoever to give them any money if we don't want to. You can bleat about piracy all you want, but that won't actually make customers happy.
"...why don't you guys focus on getting the lawbreakers to stop violating other people's rights."
At this point, the "lawbreakers" massively outnumber those desperately trying to enforce it, probably by several orders of magnitude. At what point to you conceded that the law might actually be wrong, and simply does not match up to what technology has made so easy and commonplace and what customers want?
"I wouldn't blame Mike if someone violated his rights. That would be disgusting."
Mike's rights are different to Mike's government-granted monopoly privileges. Don't confuse the two, they are not equal.
"You don't need movies and music."
For a minute there you sounded like you were trying to convince everyone they must pay for music and movies. Now you say we don't need them. That is not a good sales pitch. The people actually trying to make money this way must cringe when people like you make such misjudged comments. I don't actually disagree with your sentiment, but it doesn't help your case one bit.
"Just like in the real world, if you don't like someone's offerings, you don't have to buy it. If it's not available, you don't get it."
Sorry, in case you missed it, in "the real word" these things are available anywhere and any time. And in what other industry would someone claim "If we won't provide it, you can't have it"? Competitors would laugh all the way to the bank.
"Pretending like the internet makes all the wrongdoing OK is just disgusting."
I don't recall anyone making such a ridiculous claim. That one came straight from your head. However pretending the internet hasn't completely changed the way customers want their movies and movies delivered to them is equally boneheaded.
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
isn't pointing out ways to more effectively reduce piracy."
Unfortunately, the settlement dished out to a pirate kid that lies in court is also not a way to reduce piracy. In fact an organisation that gloats about financially ruining someone's life out of pure spite is a good way to turn people off giving that organisation's member companies a single penny in the future.
On the post: Samsung Routed In Apple Patent Fight; Told To Pay $1.05 Billion
Re: Re: Re:
More skipped English classes?
On the post: Samsung Routed In Apple Patent Fight; Told To Pay $1.05 Billion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re:
The record labels, their lobby group, and a large selection of politicians are claiming the exact opposite, and demanding even more laws be introduced. Are you wrong, or are they? You can't both be right. Please clarify your position.
On the post: Apparently The Purpose Of Copyright: Keeping Our Ancestors' Promise To Noah Webster
Re:
Your fantasy amuses me.
On the post: RapidShare: It Ain't The Hosting, It's The Linking
Re:
They are very close to the line..."
These kinds of descriptions should not be enough to trigger legal action, or you'd have half the big corporations around the world in court...
On the post: RapidShare: It Ain't The Hosting, It's The Linking
Re: Re: Re:
This is one of the stupidest phrases associated with the war on websites, and is typical word twisting by copyright maximalists. The dictionary says the word dedicated means "wholly committed to something, as to an ideal, political cause, or personal goal", or "set apart or reserved for a specific use or purpose". This simply does not describe any website I've ever seen. Until someone launches a website that specifically bans non-infringing activity, there is no such thing as a site "dedicated to infringing activity".
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They just got "nailed" for a fine equivalent to less than 20 hours worth of their profit earnings. It's the equivalent of a decent speeding fine. Try to keep a little perspective.
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You informing us of something everybody here already knows? How nice of you...
I will always be happy to pay to see quality movies in a quality cinema. I will always be happy to pay to see a band I like, or buy their physical merchandise.
But paying for infinitely copyable digital files? Probably never again.
Next >>