Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about income per-creator?
Darryl... in some ways you are looking at this backwards.
If I have only enough money for 20 litres of fuel at a certain price, and somewhere does it more expensively, I cannot buy 20 litres, only 19 or 18. So yes, price can and does affect demand.
If I go into a shop and I see a product for a cheaper price than usual, then I might well buy it even if I wouldn't have normally. This is the whole point of 'Sale' promotions in shops - just ask Tesco how much extra I spend at the Reduced counter sometimes!
Why do you think supermarkets have racks of DVDs at £3 or whatever? A lot of those, many people wouldn't bother to buy at higher prices, but they might get if suitably low. For instance, I've had friends on a low budget that won't buy a DVD for more than £3 or £5 - price is way more important than content, as they have a fair choice of content even at that price point. Or, if nothing is interesting, they'll go spend £3 on something else which may or may not be entertainment-related. It's been shown time and again, bring prices below a certain threshold, and people buy not only a lot more, but a wider choice of things.
Obviously, Need is an issue along with Desire, but they both play a part. A person may often buy something they Desire but don't Need - look at the average credit card! But likewise, people often don't buy things they Desire - or even some things they Need - because they cannot or don't want to afford them.
What you are also doing is confusing general demand for some sort of entertainment, with specific demand for a specifc product. Price that product too high, and less people will buy it, unless you can somehow convince them that the high price is a buying point. (Stella Artois?)
With the A4 example, I can only say that if supplies are low, people will tend to be more careful. If supplies are plentiful, they will be profligate and use a lot more than normal, unless some other 'cost' is applied.
Good to see you still doing the usual faulty (i.e. non-existent) logic, and resorting to automatically ad hominem-ing Mike. Tell me, have you EVER had anything non-negative/nasty to say to him? Or is that why you wake in the morning, eager to stick it to (in?) him?
Mr BS-expert, you're also missing the fact that downloading a file to watch when you like, as often as you like may overall be a much superior experience than imperfect streaming quality, or the (repeat) streaming eating up your third-world-level bandwidth cap.
Stupid? That was a great movie for the era! It had some great special effects, it managed to avoid being totally derivative of Star Wars, and it had some suitably realistic but nasty villains. In a way it was more reminiscent of 70s disaster or war movies, including the sleazebags getting their come-uppance (I could never take Ernest Borgnine seriously thereafter in Airwolf ;) Plus, the music was really good too. Sure it's a bit cheesy - but that was only 1980!
Compare to the original Battlestar Galactica for instance: V.I.N.CENT vs Muffet = no contest!
Interesting. Looking at one of those forms, even someone playing 0 ASCAP songs is still 'magically' liable for paying $340 a year. That's a tax/fine on playing music, but not even going to the government...
Are you seriously comparing drug dealers to people who run linkfarms or even provide infringing content? Are you seriously comparing the dangers of drug abuse to watching an 'illicit' copy of The Wire?
Except that your dual-standarded government would just find an excuse to refuse extradition in this case.
Still, I'd love to see someone justifying all the extra costs for extraditing, prosecuting and jailing foreign nationals, effectively turning them into non-productive immigrants, and massively over-reaching/growing the Federal Government. You'd have thought a few of the libertarians might have an issue with that, if your liberals are too spineless to take up the human rights aspect.
So when someone in the UK publically displays some media that is out of copyright in the UK but not the US, they can now be extradited for 'criminal' copyright 'infringement'?
So let me get this straight. Someone hires and puts up a giant screen in Times Square, and starts (illegally) showing the latest Batman movie, or whatever. (Hosting/publishing)
The NY Times writes about this, telling people where this performance is ('linking' to it). Maybe they even include a nice little infogram to show where Times Square is ('abetting infringing').
Some enterprising person with rooftop access can see the screen from a distance, and puts a telescope on the roof - when people ask, he shows them how they can look at the screen with the telescope, almost as if in Times Square. (Embedding)
So who do you sue? The guy with the telescope? How is he 'infringing'?
The NY Times writer? How are they 'infringing' or even contributing to infringing?
The public in Times Square - are they 'infringing' by viewing an 'unauthorised performance'?
The company that hired out the giant screen - are they 'infringing'?
The company (or city government) that owns the spot that the screen is on - are they 'infringing'?
No. Only the guy who is displaying the movie is infringing. So tell me, why would links or embeds (which are only a graphical form of link) be 'illegal'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
Whilst I hate to stick up for OotB, I will do on the grounds that some of us have a habit of using these various forms because we've been using the internet from way before such niceties as 'WYSIWYG', let alone rich text...
that also brings up the issue of the lack of ability to publish negative results. Whilst i can see potentials for abuse, it would be a useful process, and you could prove you were doing /something/.
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
As darryl proves Narcissus's point utterly.
Darryl, are you *ever* able to make a post on here without not only disagreeing with Mike, but throwing in 'ad hom' insults as well?
BTW Marcus contributes often, and usually a good deal more understandably than the shill side, particularly your 'good' self. Plus, he has the added advantage of drawing out his 'fan trolls' for some epically funny conversations (when they don't get wrecked by threaded view).
I love to read dissenting views, but not when they are just thinly veiled attacks on someone (usually Mike or Marcus) or are just automatically reactionary and therefore illogical disagreements purely based on who is writing stuff. You will therefore notice the total lack of respect people who act like that get on here. You'll get more respect going onto Free Republic and spouting the Communist Manifesto...
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Large & Growing... Not Shrinking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about income per-creator?
If I have only enough money for 20 litres of fuel at a certain price, and somewhere does it more expensively, I cannot buy 20 litres, only 19 or 18. So yes, price can and does affect demand.
If I go into a shop and I see a product for a cheaper price than usual, then I might well buy it even if I wouldn't have normally. This is the whole point of 'Sale' promotions in shops - just ask Tesco how much extra I spend at the Reduced counter sometimes!
Why do you think supermarkets have racks of DVDs at £3 or whatever? A lot of those, many people wouldn't bother to buy at higher prices, but they might get if suitably low. For instance, I've had friends on a low budget that won't buy a DVD for more than £3 or £5 - price is way more important than content, as they have a fair choice of content even at that price point. Or, if nothing is interesting, they'll go spend £3 on something else which may or may not be entertainment-related. It's been shown time and again, bring prices below a certain threshold, and people buy not only a lot more, but a wider choice of things.
Obviously, Need is an issue along with Desire, but they both play a part. A person may often buy something they Desire but don't Need - look at the average credit card! But likewise, people often don't buy things they Desire - or even some things they Need - because they cannot or don't want to afford them.
What you are also doing is confusing general demand for some sort of entertainment, with specific demand for a specifc product. Price that product too high, and less people will buy it, unless you can somehow convince them that the high price is a buying point. (Stella Artois?)
With the A4 example, I can only say that if supplies are low, people will tend to be more careful. If supplies are plentiful, they will be profligate and use a lot more than normal, unless some other 'cost' is applied.
Good to see you still doing the usual faulty (i.e. non-existent) logic, and resorting to automatically ad hominem-ing Mike. Tell me, have you EVER had anything non-negative/nasty to say to him? Or is that why you wake in the morning, eager to stick it to (in?) him?
On the post: New Market Research: Music Streaming Services Halve Illegal Downloads
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wil Wheaton Says Chris Dodd Is Lying About Lost Jobs; Says MPAA Accounting Creates More Losses Than Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Compare to the original Battlestar Galactica for instance: V.I.N.CENT vs Muffet = no contest!
On the post: Why Is NBCUniversal Threatening To Report Commenters They Disagree With To Their Employers?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Problem Worse Than Piracy? The Ridiculous Structure Of Online Music Licensing Deals
Re: Re:
On the post: Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Symbologyism
On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK
Re: Certainly wrong
Are you seriously dumb?
Oh, and how's that War on Drugs coming on? ;)
On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK
Re: what about the reverse
Still, I'd love to see someone justifying all the extra costs for extraditing, prosecuting and jailing foreign nationals, effectively turning them into non-productive immigrants, and massively over-reaching/growing the Federal Government. You'd have thought a few of the libertarians might have an issue with that, if your liberals are too spineless to take up the human rights aspect.
On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK
Re:
On the post: US Can Extradite UK Student For Copyright Infringement, Despite Site Being Legal In The UK
Re: Re: There are scary times we live in
On the post: Jazz Pioneer 'Jelly Roll' Morton's Music Finally Free For Re-use In Europe -- A Hundred Years Too Late
Re: Re:
Wait, you opted out of ours... so are the **AAs your feudal replacements?
On the post: Did You Embed The Leaked Trailer For Dark Knight Rises On Your Blog? Under SOPA, You May Face Jail Time
The NY Times writes about this, telling people where this performance is ('linking' to it). Maybe they even include a nice little infogram to show where Times Square is ('abetting infringing').
Some enterprising person with rooftop access can see the screen from a distance, and puts a telescope on the roof - when people ask, he shows them how they can look at the screen with the telescope, almost as if in Times Square. (Embedding)
So who do you sue? The guy with the telescope? How is he 'infringing'?
The NY Times writer? How are they 'infringing' or even contributing to infringing?
The public in Times Square - are they 'infringing' by viewing an 'unauthorised performance'?
The company that hired out the giant screen - are they 'infringing'?
The company (or city government) that owns the spot that the screen is on - are they 'infringing'?
No. Only the guy who is displaying the movie is infringing. So tell me, why would links or embeds (which are only a graphical form of link) be 'illegal'?
On the post: Go Daddy Supports E-PARASITE Legislation Even Though Its Own Site Is Dedicated To Theft Of Property Under Terms Of The Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
On the post: Senator Wyden Demands Answers About Feds' Seizure Of Dajaz1
Re: Re:
On the post: Learning From Beethoven: Speeding Up The Exchange Of Scientific Knowledge
Re:
On the post: New Head Of UK's Newspaper Regulators Thinks Bloggers Are A Bigger Problem Than Phone Hacking Tabloids?
Re: A Sign of Disconnection
On the post: Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs
Re: all laws kill AND MAKE jobs
On the post: Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs
Re: Re: Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
Darryl, are you *ever* able to make a post on here without not only disagreeing with Mike, but throwing in 'ad hom' insults as well?
BTW Marcus contributes often, and usually a good deal more understandably than the shill side, particularly your 'good' self. Plus, he has the added advantage of drawing out his 'fan trolls' for some epically funny conversations (when they don't get wrecked by threaded view).
I love to read dissenting views, but not when they are just thinly veiled attacks on someone (usually Mike or Marcus) or are just automatically reactionary and therefore illogical disagreements purely based on who is writing stuff. You will therefore notice the total lack of respect people who act like that get on here. You'll get more respect going onto Free Republic and spouting the Communist Manifesto...
On the post: Court Tells Omega Copyright Is Not A Sword; Rejects Attempt To Control Grey Market As Copyright Misuse
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>