Short term, you can look like a great guy by not addressing the issues, but in the long run, you face the erosion of the entire business model, which grinds it all to a halt.
Brad Wardell is the man behind the PC Gamers Bill of Rights.
I pay a grand total of $7.99 plus tax for my entertainment each month. That is for Netflix streaming. Everything else I watch is free over the air or on Hulu. Don't see any reason to pay any more than that. Plus it keeps me fully immersed in new stuff to watch.
What is really interesting is that you describe normal operating procedures for just about any business. All businesses I know of add a certain amount of financial risk to their revenue calculations in order to cover unexpected losses or other factors that might effect their overall profit.
How big such a line item is for piracy differs from company to company. However, I would think that such a line item would be far smaller for a company like Stardock versus a company like Ubisoft that wastes a lot of resources fighting piracy. Stardock realizes that such effort is a waste of those resources as they are simply a drain. They don't bring in revenue and will thus always be a losing venture.
Why anyone would want to lose money fighting piracy is anyone's guess.
No. My argument is to wait for more facts. So far there are no facts that contradict Netflix's stated position. Until there are, then there is no real reason to question it. Bring out all the assumptions and horror scenarios you want, they won't be any more true than they currently are.
Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
Why do they have to disclose it? I don't understand your issue. You are retaining outrage with ZERO facts to back it up. You may claim that if it came out as something benign you will ease up on them, but based on your current attitude, I find that hard to believe.
Considering the Forbes and RT articles are based off the Politico one and Politico mentions SOPA and PIPA as an aside, I don't think you have any real evidence to support any kind of Pro-SOPA agenda.
So again, I think you are trying to retain your outrage despite the lack of facts backing it up.
Re: Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
I never said I trust Netflix implicitly. I said I trust them that they did not set up this PAC for a pro-SOPA reason. They have enough benign and good reasons to set one up without needing SOPA as a driver. Until I see facts stating otherwise, that is enough for me.
I don't know. It sounds like you were outraged based on the bad reporting, but want to continue in that outrage and are resorting to nitpicking the details.
What would you consider proper disclosure in this case? Are you wanting a full line item accounting of every dollar spent on lobbying in the last 10 years with specific agendas tied to each one? Good luck getting that.
Personally, I am content with Netflix's comments and behavior today and trust them enough to not question why they are creating this PAC.
Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
Because the money they are spending now has absolutely nothing to do with SOPA and PIPA. They want to fight usage based billing. They want to fight bandwidth caps. They want to preserve net neutrality. They want to reform the video privacy protection act. Non of that has anything to do with SOPA and PIPA.
For those that can't read or reason, I guess your reaction is typical. However, for those willing to look into the situation, the reason for forming this PAC are quite clear.
There's been some speculation around the creation of FlixPAC. PACs are commonplace for leading companies in big, growing markets, and Netflix is no exception. We did not found FlixPAC for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA. Instead, FlixPAC helps us engage in other issues including network neutrality, bandwidth caps, usage based billing and reforming the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Based on their twitter feed it is things like Net Neutrality, Usage Based Billing, bandwidth caps etc. You know, things that directly affect them and their customers.
Ok. So you are saying that Youtube is not dominated by piracy. You claim that no one can make that argument seriously. Yet, here you are claiming that a technology you obviously don't understand is DOMINATED by piracy. Do you have some inside knowledge on every torrent everywhere that the rest of us do not have?
I really don't understand the disconnect between theaters and retailers here. Retailers will gladly sell unrated DVDs that far exceed the requirements of an R rating. These movies if rated would get an NC-17. However, theater owners will tie themselves into knots that would make a contortionist blush in order to avoid anything unrated or NC-17 in nature.
This makes no sense whatsoever. What difference is there in a 16 year-old buying an unrated DVD (which they can do around 50% of the time) and buying a ticket to an unrated movie?
I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is. We are talking about someone who is trying to legally distribute his content via download being blocked from doing so.
You are the one making suggestions that don't meet 1 or more of the following criteria:
1) Allow for a direct download.
2) Provides a high enough bandwidth for mass distribution
3) Have wide exposure
You are a software engineer and you have no clue what a torrent is and what makes it useful? I thought I have seen everything in this world, but a software engineer that is clueless about software is new to me.
On the post: Stardock CEO Wants To Maximize Sales, Not Stop Piracy
Re:
Brad Wardell is the man behind the PC Gamers Bill of Rights.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/08/29/stardock-releases-gamer039s-bill-rights-pax
I think he has a pretty good handle on addressing the issues that drive piracy in PC games.
On the post: Stardock CEO Wants To Maximize Sales, Not Stop Piracy
Re:
On the post: Stardock CEO Wants To Maximize Sales, Not Stop Piracy
Re: Dont be ignorant
How big such a line item is for piracy differs from company to company. However, I would think that such a line item would be far smaller for a company like Stardock versus a company like Ubisoft that wastes a lot of resources fighting piracy. Stardock realizes that such effort is a waste of those resources as they are simply a drain. They don't bring in revenue and will thus always be a losing venture.
Why anyone would want to lose money fighting piracy is anyone's guess.
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
So again, I think you are trying to retain your outrage despite the lack of facts backing it up.
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re:
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
What would you consider proper disclosure in this case? Are you wanting a full line item accounting of every dollar spent on lobbying in the last 10 years with specific agendas tied to each one? Good luck getting that.
Personally, I am content with Netflix's comments and behavior today and trust them enough to not question why they are creating this PAC.
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Viral Outrage is Viral
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: How stupid do they think we are?
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gt0muj
There's been some speculation around the creation of FlixPAC. PACs are commonplace for leading companies in big, growing markets, and Netflix is no exception. We did not found FlixPAC for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA. Instead, FlixPAC helps us engage in other issues including network neutrality, bandwidth caps, usage based billing and reforming the Video Privacy Protection Act.
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: ?
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
https://twitter.com/#!/netflix/status/189485496366407680
PAC was NOT set up to support SOPA/PIPA: Netflix: Stories about our new PAC and SOPA are not true
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Humble Bundle allows for torrent downloading of all games purchased through it.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Stops Picking On 'Bully', Actually Gets Some Good Press For Once
This makes no sense whatsoever. What difference is there in a 16 year-old buying an unrated DVD (which they can do around 50% of the time) and buying a ticket to an unrated movie?
On the post: Just Because It's Now Cheaper And Easier To Spy On Everyone All The Time, Doesn't Mean Governments Should Do It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights are not human rights. They are artificial rights.
Invading someone's privacy is infringing on a person's human right to privacy.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are the one making suggestions that don't meet 1 or more of the following criteria:
1) Allow for a direct download.
2) Provides a high enough bandwidth for mass distribution
3) Have wide exposure
Torrents and IsoHunt meet all those requirements.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>