I understand the logic you are using here with them looking at the lost sales through the lens of a cost/benefit analysis, but I don't think it works that way in practice and it certainly isn't going to create any goodwill towards the studio. The pennies they are sacrificing for that mythical physical purchase may in fact balance out and possibly even turn a minor profit for WB, but the number of people that they are pissing off is only going to translate from a possible short term gain to very real long term losses. Without seeing some sales data, there's no way to verify one way or another, but I would think the loss of goodwill could easily outweigh any minor short term profits.
If you just add ": The Movie" or ": The Album" to the end of that your argument perfectly describes 99% of what Hollywood and the Music industry has put out for the last decade and their logic behind SOPA/PIPA. Analogy win!
Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.
Hey there, bobbyboy. In your little rant there, you actually made a really good point that seems worth repeating...
"denying the money to the Big Content companies effectively censors future artists"
This is extremely poorly worded and very misleading by using the word censor since it's clearly not censorship, but it does raise an interesting point. Essentially in order for an artist to receive my money, they need to not be signed up with a Big Media label. Not one dime of my money will ever go to the Big Content industry ever again. That means no analog dollars or digital dimes for Big Music, Big Movies, Big Gaming, Big Publishing, and preferably even Big Retail but that one is tough. What's funny about all that is I have more money than ever to spend on frivolous things, but only indies will see that money.
The world is absolutely a better place for a piece of draconian legislation that championed censorship to be dead and buried. Hitler himself could have opposed these bills and in this one instance I would have agreed with him.
You're basically saying that both John and I are against censorship, but since John beats his wife I shouldn't be against censorship for fear of being thought of as a wife beater. I personally am not so shallow that I would reconsider my beliefs based on the perception that I would be associated with someone who believes the same but whose unrelated beliefs are unethical/illegal. Apples and oranges... grasping at straws
All credible research has shown that piracy has very little if any effect on sales. The opinion being presented is that for every dollar spent on stopping piracy you are wasting a dollar that could be put towards a business model that actually increases business. While the two ideas are not diametrically opposed, the evidence suggests that they are very disconnected. So 100mil spent on stopping piracy may bring in 1mil in new sales, if that 100mil was spent on marketing or development of products that actually make money there is a much probability of a positive return on the investment. So far the industry has probably spent more money trying to stop piracy than they will ever recoup even if it disappears. That is a bad business model plain and simple.
The question is what side of the debate you stand on. Do you stand next to the pirates, the child pornographers, and so on, or do you stand on the side of law and order? You pick your side, just remember who is standing next to you.
I guess that depends... If the pirates and the child pornographers are standing on the side of due process, constitutionality, and against censorship then there is a good chance that they may be standing next to me. Does that mean that those of us who agree with these notions support child pornography simply because someone who does also supports this view? You'd have to be a willfully ignorant douchebag to think that to be true... oh wait...
I know this is going to come as a shocker, but sometime people agree on certain issues and disagree on other issues. Weird right?!?! See in the real world people get to form their own opinions based on their values and experiences instead of just being told what to think like happens in politics and the industry. Take for instance the collective failed abortions that constitute the show Jersey Shore. I could think of no people more unlike myself, but if they took a stance against censorship and SOPA/PIPA then that would mean we have something in common. But it would just be that one thing and wouldn't change how I feel about them in general, meaning I still wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.
I also don't understand how you could so grossly misspell Big Media (thanks bob) as "law and order", but yeah... FTFY
estoppel: noun
A doctrine that holds, under certain circumstances, that a claim or assertion cannot be made if it contravenes a prior claim or assertion of the same party, or if it contradicts the factual holding of a court whose decision is not directly binding on the parties.
While I don't think what is happening here is legal, I don't think it would fall under estoppel.
Re: I think on 01/18/2012, it went down like this...
Not possible... although I guarantee he uses IE (version 6), there is no way Google could be his home page... AOL has there own default page and they don't like Google either.
Hi, bob. Hope you're doing well. We missed you last week at the bowling social. Try to make it next time... it's just not the same without you.
Just had a quick question about your argument... If you could just point out a single instance where copyright law ever had any impact whatsoever on piracy I'd really appreciate it. It seems like there are a lot of people here who read your comment and think it was the product of willful ignorance or insanity (you are still taking your meds, right?), and I think it's important to show everyone the credible research you found that backs up the assertion.
Also, Google has recently been trying to solve the drunk driving problem with cars that drive themselves. Soon our pretend autopilots that get us home from the bar will be real! Via la vodka! Tell the mister we all said hello, and dog bless you.
Completely agreed! What he did took a pair and I'm glad he did it. If I said I thought his actions were completely altruistic, I'd be lying. I guess we'll see how it pans out, and I hope it does have a positive effect towards getting some attention towards this atrocious "treaty".
As much as I'd like to think he wasn't bought, I can't help but think that maybe it's just that his price wasn't met? With everything that has been happening in this rapidly increasing downward spiral that has been the last decade in global politics, I just can't help but think none of them can be trusted.
Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but being a sane person, I tend to believe that the MPAA's and RIAA's of the world are doing what they genuinely feel is right for their constituents
I believe you are correct, but the question is who are these constituents they represent? It has been shown time and time again that those they claim to represent (content creators) are not the ones that benefit from their ever expanding purchase of legislation. The true constituents that benefit from these things are the legacy gatekeepers who are obsessed with controlling distribution to keep from having to change a dead business model. It's only a conspiracy theory if it doesn't represent reality.
To add to this, here is the response I received from Senator Ben Cardin (emphasis added):
"Thank you for writing to me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act ("PROTECT IP" or "PIPA") (S.968). I value your input and appreciate your willingness to take the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.
The Internet is the transformational tool that it is because of the freedoms it allows and the connections that it helps make possible. At the same time, the reality is that Internet piracy costs America's economy billions of dollars each year and hundreds of thousands of jobs. There is a common awareness that something must be done to stop this theft of American intellectual property, whether it be movies, music, journalism, or engineering designs. I believe that we can find a way to balance the freedoms essential to a vital and ever changing online world, with protections necessary to fight illegal activity solely designed to steal and cheat.
PIPA is narrowly tailored legislation that does differ from the much broader Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA") legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, there are real concerns with PIPA, as currently drafted, that still need to be addressed. Based on many concerns, the Senate decided not to take up the debate on this issue immediately. I will continue to seek out meaningful alternatives that would fix the bill's current flaws.
Thank you, again, for writing to me regarding this important issue and feel free to contact me with any future concerns."
It really bothers me that these talking points are still being thrown around like they have any credibility. Cardin is one of the sponsors of PIPA, and he has stated that he will not support the legislation until issues are addressed. This response was originally from an email I sent him to thank him for withdrawing support and to urge him to drop the legislation entirely. It would seem that he would like to still try and move forward with it, and I find that extremely troubling. I have sent him another request to back up the claims that I highlighted in bold, and I expect I'll get some boilerplate reply that dodges the fact that the GAO (among others) have completely debunked the loss claims from the content industries and have shown no conclusive evidence that file-sharing has any impact on sales. I'll keep my fingers crossed hoping to get a more positive response, but I'm sure not going to hold my breath.
Of all the movies on the list, many of them are unwatchable, and only 3 or 4 (aside from the Pixar flicks) would ever be worth watching a 2nd time or actually purchasing for a home collection. If this is what 200 million buys you, then clearly they are doinitwrong!
On the post: Warner Bros. Just Keeps Pushing People To Piracy; New Deal Also Delays Queuing
Re:
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is
Re: Re: yeah..
I'll take 2 dozen!
If you just add ": The Movie" or ": The Album" to the end of that your argument perfectly describes 99% of what Hollywood and the Music industry has put out for the last decade and their logic behind SOPA/PIPA. Analogy win!
/onefreesquidcakeplease?
On the post: Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music
Re:
Also, the voters theme song would probably be Hurt...
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft, But Censorship Is
Re: If keeping something from the market is censorship, then piracy=censorship.
"denying the money to the Big Content companies effectively censors future artists"
This is extremely poorly worded and very misleading by using the word censor since it's clearly not censorship, but it does raise an interesting point. Essentially in order for an artist to receive my money, they need to not be signed up with a Big Media label. Not one dime of my money will ever go to the Big Content industry ever again. That means no analog dollars or digital dimes for Big Music, Big Movies, Big Gaming, Big Publishing, and preferably even Big Retail but that one is tough. What's funny about all that is I have more money than ever to spend on frivolous things, but only indies will see that money.
On the post: FIFA Orders Brazil To Overturn Ban On Selling Beer At World Cup Matches
Stay hooliganing, my friends!
On the post: The SOPA/PIPA Protests Were Not Pro-Piracy... They Were Anti-Crony Capitalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're basically saying that both John and I are against censorship, but since John beats his wife I shouldn't be against censorship for fear of being thought of as a wife beater. I personally am not so shallow that I would reconsider my beliefs based on the perception that I would be associated with someone who believes the same but whose unrelated beliefs are unethical/illegal. Apples and oranges... grasping at straws
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re:
All credible research has shown that piracy has very little if any effect on sales. The opinion being presented is that for every dollar spent on stopping piracy you are wasting a dollar that could be put towards a business model that actually increases business. While the two ideas are not diametrically opposed, the evidence suggests that they are very disconnected. So 100mil spent on stopping piracy may bring in 1mil in new sales, if that 100mil was spent on marketing or development of products that actually make money there is a much probability of a positive return on the investment. So far the industry has probably spent more money trying to stop piracy than they will ever recoup even if it disappears. That is a bad business model plain and simple.
On the post: The SOPA/PIPA Protests Were Not Pro-Piracy... They Were Anti-Crony Capitalism
Re: Re: Re:
I guess that depends... If the pirates and the child pornographers are standing on the side of due process, constitutionality, and against censorship then there is a good chance that they may be standing next to me. Does that mean that those of us who agree with these notions support child pornography simply because someone who does also supports this view? You'd have to be a willfully ignorant douchebag to think that to be true... oh wait...
I know this is going to come as a shocker, but sometime people agree on certain issues and disagree on other issues. Weird right?!?! See in the real world people get to form their own opinions based on their values and experiences instead of just being told what to think like happens in politics and the industry. Take for instance the collective failed abortions that constitute the show Jersey Shore. I could think of no people more unlike myself, but if they took a stance against censorship and SOPA/PIPA then that would mean we have something in common. But it would just be that one thing and wouldn't change how I feel about them in general, meaning I still wouldn't cross the street to piss on them if they were on fire.
I also don't understand how you could so grossly misspell Big Media (thanks bob) as "law and order", but yeah... FTFY
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
:P
On the post: Megaupload Users Plan To Sue... As Their Files & Data Are About To Be Destroyed
Re: Re:
A doctrine that holds, under certain circumstances, that a claim or assertion cannot be made if it contravenes a prior claim or assertion of the same party, or if it contradicts the factual holding of a court whose decision is not directly binding on the parties.
While I don't think what is happening here is legal, I don't think it would fall under estoppel.
On the post: MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'
Re: I think on 01/18/2012, it went down like this...
On the post: An Infographic Showing Just How Frequently Hollywood Has Cried Wolf About 'Piracy'
Re: Why is clear that they cried wolf?
Just had a quick question about your argument... If you could just point out a single instance where copyright law ever had any impact whatsoever on piracy I'd really appreciate it. It seems like there are a lot of people here who read your comment and think it was the product of willful ignorance or insanity (you are still taking your meds, right?), and I think it's important to show everyone the credible research you found that backs up the assertion.
Also, Google has recently been trying to solve the drunk driving problem with cars that drive themselves. Soon our pretend autopilots that get us home from the bar will be real! Via la vodka! Tell the mister we all said hello, and dog bless you.
On the post: An Infographic Showing Just How Frequently Hollywood Has Cried Wolf About 'Piracy'
Re:
Did you just say that teaching people not to repeat the mistakes of the past is a bad thing done solely to generate advertising revenues?
I don't even know how to properly respond to this level of fail. /speechless
On the post: The Onion Explains SOPA And PIPA (As Only The Onion Can)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Onion Explains SOPA And PIPA (As Only The Onion Can)
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The 'Masquerade' Behind ACTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hope this is a sign
On the post: European Parliament Official In Charge Of ACTA Quits, And Denounces The 'Masquerade' Behind ACTA
Re: Re: Hope this is a sign
/illgomakenewtinfoilhatnow
On the post: Public Interest Groups Speak Out About Next Week's Secret Meeting In Hollywood To Negotiate TPP (Think International SOPA)
Re: What I don't get
I believe you are correct, but the question is who are these constituents they represent? It has been shown time and time again that those they claim to represent (content creators) are not the ones that benefit from their ever expanding purchase of legislation. The true constituents that benefit from these things are the legacy gatekeepers who are obsessed with controlling distribution to keep from having to change a dead business model. It's only a conspiracy theory if it doesn't represent reality.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: It Wasn't Silicon Valley Or Google That Stopped SOPA/PIPA, It Was The Internet
Re:
"Thank you for writing to me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act ("PROTECT IP" or "PIPA") (S.968). I value your input and appreciate your willingness to take the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.
The Internet is the transformational tool that it is because of the freedoms it allows and the connections that it helps make possible. At the same time, the reality is that Internet piracy costs America's economy billions of dollars each year and hundreds of thousands of jobs. There is a common awareness that something must be done to stop this theft of American intellectual property, whether it be movies, music, journalism, or engineering designs. I believe that we can find a way to balance the freedoms essential to a vital and ever changing online world, with protections necessary to fight illegal activity solely designed to steal and cheat.
PIPA is narrowly tailored legislation that does differ from the much broader Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA") legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, there are real concerns with PIPA, as currently drafted, that still need to be addressed. Based on many concerns, the Senate decided not to take up the debate on this issue immediately. I will continue to seek out meaningful alternatives that would fix the bill's current flaws.
Thank you, again, for writing to me regarding this important issue and feel free to contact me with any future concerns."
It really bothers me that these talking points are still being thrown around like they have any credibility. Cardin is one of the sponsors of PIPA, and he has stated that he will not support the legislation until issues are addressed. This response was originally from an email I sent him to thank him for withdrawing support and to urge him to drop the legislation entirely. It would seem that he would like to still try and move forward with it, and I find that extremely troubling. I have sent him another request to back up the claims that I highlighted in bold, and I expect I'll get some boilerplate reply that dodges the fact that the GAO (among others) have completely debunked the loss claims from the content industries and have shown no conclusive evidence that file-sharing has any impact on sales. I'll keep my fingers crossed hoping to get a more positive response, but I'm sure not going to hold my breath.
On the post: Once Again, If You're Trying To Save The $200 Million Movie, Perhaps You're Asking The Wrong Questions
Re:
Of all the movies on the list, many of them are unwatchable, and only 3 or 4 (aside from the Pixar flicks) would ever be worth watching a 2nd time or actually purchasing for a home collection. If this is what 200 million buys you, then clearly they are doinitwrong!
Next >>