Explain why? According to you "a crime is a crime". By your logic, context is irrelevant. A crime is a crime!
I don't care if this guy was sharing hundreds of files. There is no way that is as severe or should be punished as severely as homicide or rape or abuse of a child under ANY context.
I think those that consider would rather have two games at $30 are not necessarily a demographic that would buy the game at $60 in the first place.
If I go to buy a game, I know what I want before I go. Usually it is a new release. I may pick up a used title if its cheap enough if I hadn't bought it at release I probably didn't want it that much. I would certainly never pay full price for it new so it isn't a lost sale to the publisher. At least this way I get to try their product and maybe buy the next one when it's released.
Other people won't buy new no matter what. Strangling the used market isn't going to magically make those people start buying games at $60 a pop. I suspect most of them simply won't buy at all.
I think it depends on what the publisher determines the cost to be.
If a game is crap and doesn't sell, Gamestop doesn't want to pay the same cost as a AAA blockbuster title because they can't sell it at the same price. To move the shitty titles at all they have to cut prices below what the publisher wants.
Publishers over-value a lot of what they produce. They produce a lot of crappy titles and expect to rake in the same price per unit as Call of Duty or other successful titles.
Sell it at a loss??? Games I buy always cost $60! How is that selling at a loss??
The new titles sell cheaper is when they are terrible games people won't buy at that price. In those cases the publisher should be happy to sell units at any price. Gamestop probably wants to recoup anything, even at a loss, to get those stinkers off the shelves.
You can't publish a weak product and expect to get top dollar!
They also ignore the fact that games that are good/have demand sell used for very little discount. Theres not much incentive to buy those used. I (and many others) prefer new in those cases.
"spending time and energy attempting to prevent piracy will only leave you tired and frustrated."
Also money. I've always wondered how much gets spent on anti-piracy. With all the lawyers, internet investigators, lobbying, and some of the outrageous salaries at the MPAA/RIAA (why do they get paid so much?) I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to worry less about the pirates and save your cash. All that expense doesn't seem terribly effective anyway.
They would have far less DMCA notices if copyright holders would relax a little and not get in an uproar over 30 second clips of Spongebob or whatever (which are probably fair use anyway). Just sit back and enjoy the free publicity.
Save the DMCA for things like full episodes and things that truly infringe your copyright.
Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
Mike didn't exaggerate anything. Swartsel did. I don't see anyplace in what Roettger said that condones piracy.
Roettger doesn't need to SUGGEST that infringing content is a substitute good because, to many people, it IS a substitute. Whether he feels this is right or wrong is irrelevant and isn't stated in his article. Downloading movies, etc. on the internet is easy to do and a lot of people don't feel bad about it. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. The large number of people sharing illegal files backs this up. If you don't think many people would find this a tempting alternative in an uncertain economy then you are naive.
Bottom line- Roettger is telling it like it is. Labeling that as intellectual dishonesty is not only disingenuous but its a self-destructive attitude to have. Roettger and others are pointing out exactly why piracy is looking more attractive. Don't you think it would be more profitable to take in some of the well reasoned points being made and take some proactive steps to change some of the things that make consumers consider piracy in the first place?
It's because most small business owners have very little to no knowledge of copyright law or music licensing. They are focused on the hundreds of other problems associated with running a restaurant. They think that they can simply turn on the radio or play a CD. And why not? The radio is freely broadcast and they bought the CD.
When someone comes to them asking for thousands because the played the radio it sounds absurd to them.
My father owned a restaurant when I was growing up. I think about how he would have reacted if someone had walked in and demanded he pay a license like that. I think he would tell them how crazy that sounds and then physically throw them out the door.
This is what I hate about the anti-piracy crusade. It is easier for those that don't produce a quality product to blame "piracy" than take responsibility for their shortcomings.
Is my book any good? Should I evaluate the product, find its weak points and work hard to improve them and earn more sales? Nah, must be piracy holding sales back.
Too bad writers/artists get that attitude and do these types of PR gigs. It hurts them more because now I'll NEVER buy any of her works and I bet there are others with the same mindset..
Re: Re: Re: Good to see a little populist outrage /here/.
I'm not opposed to them making money. They provide a product we use/need and the should reap some benefit from that.
However, using underhanded tactics and leveraging the fact that some people need their medications to live is wrong. How many billions in profit is enough??
Are you just making up hypothetical scenarios to scare people?
The tech isn't dangerous, it is how it is used. That applies to many techs.
This implementation only suggests people YOU ALREADY KNOW. If you can't remember who that is they won't (or shouldn't) be in your friend list.
There are certainly ways facial recognition could be used to erode privacy. If Facebook ever implements one of them I'll be right there with you storming their gates. This use of the tech however, isn't any more risk than what you already assume by having a Facebook account at all.
Our privacy is being taken away by lots of things. Heck, with Facebook you give it away willingly. The addition of this feature doesn't make Facebook any less private.
How exactly do they determine if a song is unauthorized?
I have plenty of stuff from a LONG time ago that I ripped myself from CD's I've owned. I had those way before I ever had purchased any music online. Would they call those files unauthorized?
On the post: 60 Year Old Swedish Man Gets Sentenced To 'Conditional' Two Years In Jail For File Sharing
Re:
I don't care if this guy was sharing hundreds of files. There is no way that is as severe or should be punished as severely as homicide or rape or abuse of a child under ANY context.
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
Re:
If I go to buy a game, I know what I want before I go. Usually it is a new release. I may pick up a used title if its cheap enough if I hadn't bought it at release I probably didn't want it that much. I would certainly never pay full price for it new so it isn't a lost sale to the publisher. At least this way I get to try their product and maybe buy the next one when it's released.
Other people won't buy new no matter what. Strangling the used market isn't going to magically make those people start buying games at $60 a pop. I suspect most of them simply won't buy at all.
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
Re:
If a game is crap and doesn't sell, Gamestop doesn't want to pay the same cost as a AAA blockbuster title because they can't sell it at the same price. To move the shitty titles at all they have to cut prices below what the publisher wants.
Publishers over-value a lot of what they produce. They produce a lot of crappy titles and expect to rake in the same price per unit as Call of Duty or other successful titles.
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
Re: Re:
The new titles sell cheaper is when they are terrible games people won't buy at that price. In those cases the publisher should be happy to sell units at any price. Gamestop probably wants to recoup anything, even at a loss, to get those stinkers off the shelves.
You can't publish a weak product and expect to get top dollar!
They also ignore the fact that games that are good/have demand sell used for very little discount. Theres not much incentive to buy those used. I (and many others) prefer new in those cases.
On the post: So How Do We Fix The Patent System?
Re:
In the mean time we are gonna have to pay more for things to support the cost of all this patent nonsense :(
On the post: Dubstep Producer Bassnectar Talks Piracy, Leaks And Making It Easy For Your Fans To Support You
Money
Also money. I've always wondered how much gets spent on anti-piracy. With all the lawyers, internet investigators, lobbying, and some of the outrageous salaries at the MPAA/RIAA (why do they get paid so much?) I wonder if it wouldn't just be cheaper to worry less about the pirates and save your cash. All that expense doesn't seem terribly effective anyway.
On the post: Yet Another 'Rogue Site' List Proposed, This Time With YouTube Right On Top
They could reduce the number of notices
Save the DMCA for things like full episodes and things that truly infringe your copyright.
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
Roettger doesn't need to SUGGEST that infringing content is a substitute good because, to many people, it IS a substitute. Whether he feels this is right or wrong is irrelevant and isn't stated in his article. Downloading movies, etc. on the internet is easy to do and a lot of people don't feel bad about it. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. The large number of people sharing illegal files backs this up. If you don't think many people would find this a tempting alternative in an uncertain economy then you are naive.
Bottom line- Roettger is telling it like it is. Labeling that as intellectual dishonesty is not only disingenuous but its a self-destructive attitude to have. Roettger and others are pointing out exactly why piracy is looking more attractive. Don't you think it would be more profitable to take in some of the well reasoned points being made and take some proactive steps to change some of the things that make consumers consider piracy in the first place?
On the post: Paul Ceglia To Facebook: I Didn't Forge A Contract, You Did!
He's reaching
On another note I checked out the zdnet article. A lot of commenters there seem, um.. special. A lot of rage against Facebook.
On the post: Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs
Re: Elevator music
When someone comes to them asking for thousands because the played the radio it sounds absurd to them.
My father owned a restaurant when I was growing up. I think about how he would have reacted if someone had walked in and demanded he pay a license like that. I think he would tell them how crazy that sounds and then physically throw them out the door.
On the post: Oh Look, The Publishing Industry Is Growing In The Digital Age As Well
Work harder
Is my book any good? Should I evaluate the product, find its weak points and work hard to improve them and earn more sales? Nah, must be piracy holding sales back.
Too bad writers/artists get that attitude and do these types of PR gigs. It hurts them more because now I'll NEVER buy any of her works and I bet there are others with the same mindset..
On the post: Another View Of The Netflix Price Hike: It's Speeding Up The Shift To Online Streaming
Re: Streaming sucks though
Streaming isn't in its infancy, but you certainly need proper broadband to use it fully.
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Re: Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...
This is not a parenting manual. It is not intended, marketed, or portrayed as such. It is a joke, it's supposed to be funny.
If you cannot make the distinction then the problem is with YOU, not the book.
On the post: Priced Out Of Your Medication? Must Be All That 'Expensive' Big Pharma R&D
Re: Re: Re: Good to see a little populist outrage /here/.
However, using underhanded tactics and leveraging the fact that some people need their medications to live is wrong. How many billions in profit is enough??
On the post: There Really Are Privacy Issues Out There; Facebook Using Facial Recognition Is Not One Of Them
Re: Features in that video
The tech isn't dangerous, it is how it is used. That applies to many techs.
This implementation only suggests people YOU ALREADY KNOW. If you can't remember who that is they won't (or shouldn't) be in your friend list.
There are certainly ways facial recognition could be used to erode privacy. If Facebook ever implements one of them I'll be right there with you storming their gates. This use of the tech however, isn't any more risk than what you already assume by having a Facebook account at all.
Our privacy is being taken away by lots of things. Heck, with Facebook you give it away willingly. The addition of this feature doesn't make Facebook any less private.
On the post: Apple Sues Teen Who Sold Repair Parts To Make Your iPhone Into A Mythical White iPhone
Re: Why are people standing up for the kid?
After the media attention he had to see this coming.
On the post: Gene Weingarten Shows How To Respond To Bogus Trademark Threats: Stetson(R) Hats Suck
Weenis
I just read this. My wife has used the word "weenis" for years. I should have had her copyright it:)
On the post: RIAA Wants To Start Peeking Into Files You Store In The Cloud
Question
I have plenty of stuff from a LONG time ago that I ripped myself from CD's I've owned. I had those way before I ever had purchased any music online. Would they call those files unauthorized?
On the post: Guy Asks For Software Crack, Creator Provides Free App Instead
Re: a new approach for RIAA?
It's not like that model has worked well for them or anything....
On the post: Guy Asks For Software Crack, Creator Provides Free App Instead
Re: Re:
Next >>