You are a woman of contradictions, miss. You somehow manage to type english sentences without understanding how to read english. It's as impressive as it is sad.
As someone who pays, or has paid, for Hulu, Netflix, Mog and Gamefly, I can attest that "because it's free" is not why I might pirate. However, "because it's unavailable in the format or on the device I want", "because it's over priced" and "because I'm unsure of the quality of the product" are all reasons I might pirate.
What's really interesting is that it is illegal for a label to pay the radio to play it's music more than others-- which clearly shows that they are willing to pay someone else to give away their product for free, because they know it leads to more money in the long run.
For some reason, when you add "on the internet" into the mix, they get all cross-eyed and freak out.
There is certainly more of an issue regarding commercial piracy than file sharing. They're really 2 separate issues, although the motivation for going the pirate route may be similar.
I don't know if I agree. If anything, it more explicitly shows that people are willing to pay, but the legitimate sources are pricing it too high.
Similarly, if a person is willing to pay $15/mo for a VPN service so that they can "safely" get digital goods for free, then they have a price point they're willing to pay for digital goods: At least $15/mo.
The answers are staring them in the face, but they refuse to see them.
Making money does not automatically make something not fair use. Who ever told you that was incorrect. If what you say was true, you'd never see clips of anything on the news, among other things.
You really don't understand what this whole copyright thing is for, do you?
Some of the people I know who brag about "sharing" are perfectly capable of paying $20/month for Netflix. They certainly have $20 for 20 songs on iTunes.
I have a feeling, Big Bob, that Big Math is a Big Problem for you. If I have $20 in my budget to spend on entertainment, and I spent it all on music entertainment, but then I infringe on the copyrights of a movie producer and watch a movie for free, because I've already spent my $20, who is harmed?
Sharing culture is not a game, it's Big Human Nature.
So, Big Bob, does putting the word "big" in front of things make it evil? You must hate Big Bird, and Big Ben, and maybe even Big Balls. Big deal, Big guy.
Do you know what else would cut into sales? TV, Music, Movies, Hobbies, Work, Children, Interpretive Dance, drinking, eating, having sex, growing banana trees, eating bananas, starting fires, raising naked mole rats, cooking naked mole rats over a fire built under a banana tree, feeding naked mole rats to children, and writing really ignorant comments on blogs.
Let's make all those things illegal too, so we can save the "For Dummies" books.
If you see someone do something you think, in your opinion, is foolish, time and time again, even if they are completely within their rights to do this foolish thing, then it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them, without being anti-whatever-they're-doing.
I think it's foolish to say stupid shit, but that doesn't mean I'm against a person's rights to say stupid shit, if they so desire. That being said, if a person keeps saying stupid shit, I'm going to criticize them.
Suing someone for pirating a digital good does nothing to increase your profits. If the publisher said he was suing Al Gore for inventing the internet that allowed piracy to exist, you'd be wise to stop doing business with that publisher, too, because it would be just as effective at bringing in paying customers.
People pirate for three major reasons: 1. They have no money to buy your product 2. They don't value your product enough to pay for it 3. They're freeloaders who won't pay for any digital goods.
If we could wave a wand and make piracy go away, none of the above-mentioned groups would suddenly start buying. Group 1 still has no money, Group 2 still doesn't value your products, and Group 3 is still a bunch of freeloaders.
It is *literally* a waste of time and money (aka, a bad business decision) to tilt at the windmill of piracy.
I hope that answers your questions. If not, please elaborate! :)
You have no idea what you're talking about. That's good to know.
and even the pirates are loath to link to them in public without some sort of "third party" to take the heat.
So, we agree that the third party isn't "pirates", yes? Also good to know.
See, that is part of the deal, blocking those overseas websites who break the US law, offer their sites to US consumers, but are hiding out trying not to have US law apply to them.
Does this legal view flow both ways? Are US sites expected to obey the laws in other countries, because you can access them? Think hard on that one.
Sorry, I responded on my Bionic and double tapped the submit button.
You really thinks that shows I don't know how to use a browser? I'm interested on how you make that leap, versus just assuming it was an accident. Explain. Show your work.
Existing copyright doesn't AT ALL prohibit you from giving away your own works.
Of course it doesn't. Especially since CC *is* "existing copyright". What seems to be lost on everyone against CC licenses is that is is simply that, a license. No one would say "SoAndSo must not value their work very much, they granted a license to use their works to Viacom!"
All this does is remove the lawyers, arguably the most useless member of copyrights, from copyright. Instead of needing a lawyer to look over the license, you can see that it's under creative commons, of whatever flavor, and know that you have a license to do X, Y and Z with the work-- no lawyer needed.
What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of?
You're asking the wrong questions. The RIAA/MPAA aren't in the piracy combat business-- they don't need effective ways to combat piracy, unless it will result in a gain in their actual business, selling non-scarce media.
So, the answer to your question is "Stop combatting piracy and focus on giving customers what they want". If you want to prvent mold, you make sure there are no places where mold will flourish. If you want to prevent piracy, you make sure there are no places where piracy will flourish. If I can get what I want, when I want, at a price I feel is fair, then I have no need for piracy. *That* is how you beat piracy.
Actually Joe, I wrote here a long time ago about the reality:
Prove it. ;)
The movie theater release is [blah blah blah]
You're telling me how it is, I'm telling you that the way it is is stupid and is pissing off customers. It had it's time and place, but that is in the past now.
As for your McRib example, I invite you to go to your local Mickey D location at 7:45 AM and order a McRib.
I'm going to ignore the fact that the real reason they don't serve lunch at breakfast is a lack of space to cook that many things, because I know what you're getting at.
Running with that scenario: If there was a guy outside selling McRibs during breakfast time, and every time someone asked for a McRib at breakfast and were turned away from McDonalds, they simply went to this guy and got one, who was giving them away for free. Sure, he got the ingridents in a shady manner-- they were slipped to him by a McDonalds employee at a McDonalds across town-- otherwise they are exactly the same as an official McRib. Most people would still rather get one from McDonalds, but they want a McRib more than they want a McRib from McDonalds. The "from McDonalds" part is desired, but not required.
McDonald's has two choices: Go after the guy and make him stop giving away McRibs, or give the customer what they want, and sell McRibs for breakfast. The sad truth is, even if they stop the guy from giving away McRibs, there are still people out there who want a McRib for breakfast and they aren't going to suddenly want a dry and brick-like Egg McMuffin, they want a McRib. They'll just look for it elsewhere, or go to Taco Bell instead.
In every scenario except one, McDonalds does not come out ahead. The *only* scenario where McDonalds comes out ahead is giving the customer what they want, when they want.
On the post: Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000
Re: Re: They are still avoiding the truth
On the post: The Real Issue With Apple's 'Slide-To-Unlock' Patent: Double Patenting & Bogus Continuations
Re: novices are funny
On the post: Spanish Judge Gets It: Pirated Copies Not Necessarily Lost Sales, May Boost Purchases Later
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Spanish Judge Gets It: Pirated Copies Not Necessarily Lost Sales, May Boost Purchases Later
Re: Re: Re: Radio causes lost sales
For some reason, when you add "on the internet" into the mix, they get all cross-eyed and freak out.
On the post: Spanish Judge Gets It: Pirated Copies Not Necessarily Lost Sales, May Boost Purchases Later
Re: Re:
I don't know if I agree. If anything, it more explicitly shows that people are willing to pay, but the legitimate sources are pricing it too high.
Similarly, if a person is willing to pay $15/mo for a VPN service so that they can "safely" get digital goods for free, then they have a price point they're willing to pay for digital goods: At least $15/mo.
The answers are staring them in the face, but they refuse to see them.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: They are not clueless
You really don't understand what this whole copyright thing is for, do you?
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
I have a feeling, Big Bob, that Big Math is a Big Problem for you. If I have $20 in my budget to spend on entertainment, and I spent it all on music entertainment, but then I infringe on the copyrights of a movie producer and watch a movie for free, because I've already spent my $20, who is harmed?
Sharing culture is not a game, it's Big Human Nature.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re:
Let's make all those things illegal too, so we can save the "For Dummies" books.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's foolish to say stupid shit, but that doesn't mean I'm against a person's rights to say stupid shit, if they so desire. That being said, if a person keeps saying stupid shit, I'm going to criticize them.
On the post: Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
Re: Logic Bomb
People pirate for three major reasons: 1. They have no money to buy your product 2. They don't value your product enough to pay for it 3. They're freeloaders who won't pay for any digital goods.
If we could wave a wand and make piracy go away, none of the above-mentioned groups would suddenly start buying. Group 1 still has no money, Group 2 still doesn't value your products, and Group 3 is still a bunch of freeloaders.
It is *literally* a waste of time and money (aka, a bad business decision) to tilt at the windmill of piracy.
I hope that answers your questions. If not, please elaborate! :)
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no idea what you're talking about. That's good to know.
and even the pirates are loath to link to them in public without some sort of "third party" to take the heat.
So, we agree that the third party isn't "pirates", yes? Also good to know.
See, that is part of the deal, blocking those overseas websites who break the US law, offer their sites to US consumers, but are hiding out trying not to have US law apply to them.
Does this legal view flow both ways? Are US sites expected to obey the laws in other countries, because you can access them? Think hard on that one.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"John Doe": "So, how would you review 48 hrs of uploaded video every minute?"
I would say the same about copyrights, too. Only one of the two are telling me what I can and can't do with my culture.
On the post: Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FIXED THIS FOR YA:
You really thinks that shows I don't know how to use a browser? I'm interested on how you make that leap, versus just assuming it was an accident. Explain. Show your work.
On the post: Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists
Re: Re: Re: FIXED THIS FOR YA:
On the post: Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists
Re: Re: Re: FIXED THIS FOR YA:
On the post: Why Creative Commons Licenses Help Rather Than Hinder Struggling Artists
Re: FIXED THIS FOR YA:
Of course it doesn't. Especially since CC *is* "existing copyright". What seems to be lost on everyone against CC licenses is that is is simply that, a license. No one would say "SoAndSo must not value their work very much, they granted a license to use their works to Viacom!"
All this does is remove the lawyers, arguably the most useless member of copyrights, from copyright. Instead of needing a lawyer to look over the license, you can see that it's under creative commons, of whatever flavor, and know that you have a license to do X, Y and Z with the work-- no lawyer needed.
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
Re: Re: Re:
You're asking the wrong questions. The RIAA/MPAA aren't in the piracy combat business-- they don't need effective ways to combat piracy, unless it will result in a gain in their actual business, selling non-scarce media.
So, the answer to your question is "Stop combatting piracy and focus on giving customers what they want". If you want to prvent mold, you make sure there are no places where mold will flourish. If you want to prevent piracy, you make sure there are no places where piracy will flourish. If I can get what I want, when I want, at a price I feel is fair, then I have no need for piracy. *That* is how you beat piracy.
On the post: Warner Bros. Hates Libraries, Wants To Embargo DVD Sales To Libraries For A Month
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prove it. ;)
The movie theater release is [blah blah blah]
You're telling me how it is, I'm telling you that the way it is is stupid and is pissing off customers. It had it's time and place, but that is in the past now.
As for your McRib example, I invite you to go to your local Mickey D location at 7:45 AM and order a McRib.
I'm going to ignore the fact that the real reason they don't serve lunch at breakfast is a lack of space to cook that many things, because I know what you're getting at.
Running with that scenario: If there was a guy outside selling McRibs during breakfast time, and every time someone asked for a McRib at breakfast and were turned away from McDonalds, they simply went to this guy and got one, who was giving them away for free. Sure, he got the ingridents in a shady manner-- they were slipped to him by a McDonalds employee at a McDonalds across town-- otherwise they are exactly the same as an official McRib. Most people would still rather get one from McDonalds, but they want a McRib more than they want a McRib from McDonalds. The "from McDonalds" part is desired, but not required.
McDonald's has two choices: Go after the guy and make him stop giving away McRibs, or give the customer what they want, and sell McRibs for breakfast. The sad truth is, even if they stop the guy from giving away McRibs, there are still people out there who want a McRib for breakfast and they aren't going to suddenly want a dry and brick-like Egg McMuffin, they want a McRib. They'll just look for it elsewhere, or go to Taco Bell instead.
In every scenario except one, McDonalds does not come out ahead. The *only* scenario where McDonalds comes out ahead is giving the customer what they want, when they want.
This isn't rocket science.
Next >>