What you fail to understand is that every time someone takes a copy of a movie, the owner (the company that made the movie) still has actually lost something. They lose a potential customer, and they have instead gained someone likely to give that free movie away and take away another potential customer.
They haven't lost a customer. They haven't chosen to make money from that customer. If the only functional copies of a movie are only available through unofficial means, that's not the problem of your paying customers.
It's hard to quantify on an individual case basis, but you only have to look at the nosedive in recorded music sales since the Napster era to understand the effects.
If one person doing it is hard to prove as a crime, why is it suddenly easier when you throw me in a faceless group? Oh, that's right: because being faceless makes it easier to mark me as doing you some great harm. Also, the only nosedive was the size of studio coffers. The music industry is doing very well.
Finally, movies are only "infinitely available" due to piracy. That isn't a legal act. As soon as you remove the illegal act from the discussion, Movies are as limited in distribution as cars are.
No, as soon as ANYONE makes a digital copy, it is infinitely available. No matter who made the copy, studio, director, or sweaty teenager, it is just as infinitely available. Any availability restrictions are artificial. Artificial restrictions are as morally wrong to me as acknowledging infinity seems to be to you.
Generally, I'd say it's because the original audio sucked... compared to now, anyways. But seriously, from what I know of remastering, the remasters look great! Compared to the original anyways.
Especially when the original, no matter the condition, was less than optimal by modern standards. Like the re-release of Snow White. It looks great, but... that's not how it looked originally. There may have been some fading over time, but I kinda doubt it was that dramatic. Especially since I've heard a few "original watchers" saying it looked better than (or garish in comparison to) what they remembered.
My point is, remastering can be good, but it's not what people are asking for. They just want a copy of what the studio has in their vault. Yes, it kinda sucks compared to a 1080p 7.1 surround copy, but I want the original movie, not your "improved" version. I don't want a colorized copy of Casablanca or Metropolis. I just want a copy. I don't care if it's not up to your "standards," as long it's close to the original.
The matter replicator I was referring to in my analogy/metaphor is a computer. The car is a movie. Since cars are not infinitely available after a single copy is made, but movies are, I had to refer to the world where Cars=Movies as a magical fairyland.
All (well, most, probably) of those opinion pieces are based on studies, and are scrutinizing the information that is available. I can't help that most of the factual information that is available from YOUR side is direct observation of punishing the legit customers.
Well, then you obviously aren't a Techdirt user, since all Techdirters are broadbrushing freetard shills for Big Search, Big Hardware, and Big Pirates.
If your customers want you to include a screwdriver and slimjim with the car they buy from you, why the hell wouldn't you?
Better yet, and on topic, why not just sell me a car that I, the owner, can use with the gasoline I can get at a gas station, instead of having to buy the gas that the dealer sells?
Even better, let's deal with some of the real issues that are being discussed.
In this magical fairyland you refer to that has cars that can both be stolen, and the owner can still make full use of them, car designers/companies/dealers no longer have the same place in the market. Everyone has a matter replicator in their house. Why should I pay the same price for a set of blueprints as I do for a fully functional car that I can use right now?
"but, Pirates!"
No, if I want a guarantee that my car won't blow up and kill my family (viruses), I will buy the official blueprint, if the price is fair. If it's not fair, I will buy a car from a second-hand dealer. If I don't care about the quality of my car, or the safety of my family, nothing you do will EVER convince me to either pay for your blueprints, or buy a car off you lot. That is because I would be an idiot. But that's my problem. You still have a huge market of non-idiots that want to give you their money. Just not as much as you ask.
Any restrictions you place on your cars effect ONLY your paying customers. Because the pirated copies of the car are identical to the real cars, down to the VIN, and (magical) aura-stamp. And now the guy that bought the car from you directly wants to know why Bob can start his car with a car key, instead of having to connect his car to your network, waiting to get authorization, and hoping the gas downloads correctly this time.
"Only two types of people can disagree with the person holding a gun to their head: professionals and maniacs, and most people can't tell the difference, anyways..."
Not to mention, the definition of piracy keeps expanding to include things that were not, and should not be, piracy (i.e. DRM circumvention for personal use), and then using those (inflated for good measure) numbers to push for, and defend new, more expansive, and more draconion anti-"piracy" laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
I was trying to add emphasis. Dangit. I hate having to code for emphasis, when usually capitalizing works. Frikkin... grumble mutter murmur murmur murmur
Re: Re: Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
Once again: The DRM-ed copy is PART of the product that is being PAID for. It is not some free thing that is being given as a gift. I cannot buy a copy of this movie without the digital copy included, therefore it is a feature. The review of the DRM is a review of a broken part of the product. That is a legitimate review. Because for me, a part of what I'm paying for being that badly broken is of great concern to me.
Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
I have made accounts on a few sites and used them one time, because I was so pissed off by the product being broken, that I told people it was broken, and then never went back.
Since the DRM is tied to the "digital copy" that is included in the price of the DVD, it IS a review of the product. Specifically, the not-working part of the product. So, so much for straw-man arguments.
Plus, how many people with the time and willingness to use the digital copy aren't tech-savvy enough to expect better? My parents and sister buy a movie with a digital copy "because it's digital," and because they expect it to work just like bittorrent (and Steam). Download and play. Anywhere. Anytime. Why? Because it makes sense. Because we pay $50+ a month for 20 gb/s internet, and our end can handle the bandwidth, why can't theirs? Because anyone with access to a search engine can find a copy that works better.
We don't want free. We want function. We want a price that is justified by the content. If you can't justify your price with your content, your price isn't worth it. So I won't pay it.
I will never buy a DVD with this broken DRM included, and if I can get to them first to explain the problem, neither will anyone in my family.
No additional cost? Really? Okay. Maybe. Let's say I agree. It is STILL included in the price I paid for the movie.
Of course, I should just be grateful that I'm allowed to pay for a version of the movie that may work when the stars are aligned and I sacrifice a kitten to 'Mtumakalumba, since it's different.
I wonder if you would be so willing to share your qualified (I'm sure) opinion about everyone else in the world, if Mike insisted on having an identity tied to your comments.
Decrying anonymity anonymously just seems screwed up to me...
Let's go ever this again. When you fail in the marketplace, and decide to sue the one with enough money to get you paid, but a bad enough reputation that you might win, what are you? Yup. You're a troll.
My PS3 syncs playlists. My phone syncs playlists. They ain't suing Samsung or Sony.
Can someone, somewhere, please point me to someplace that can say why Jobs is somehow more evil than the ~15% of the non-luddite community that is atheist, or is it just because he admitted publicly that he was raised "Christian" (a more vague term, you will hardly ever meet)?
Re: Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)
On a more serious note, if a judge can be convinced against him by an obviously boilerplate legal filing, that just goes to show that, a: his case was just that weak, and/or b: the boilerplate was absolutely a legitimate defense.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Documentaries
They haven't lost a customer. They haven't chosen to make money from that customer. If the only functional copies of a movie are only available through unofficial means, that's not the problem of your paying customers.
It's hard to quantify on an individual case basis, but you only have to look at the nosedive in recorded music sales since the Napster era to understand the effects.
If one person doing it is hard to prove as a crime, why is it suddenly easier when you throw me in a faceless group? Oh, that's right: because being faceless makes it easier to mark me as doing you some great harm. Also, the only nosedive was the size of studio coffers. The music industry is doing very well.
Finally, movies are only "infinitely available" due to piracy. That isn't a legal act. As soon as you remove the illegal act from the discussion, Movies are as limited in distribution as cars are.
No, as soon as ANYONE makes a digital copy, it is infinitely available. No matter who made the copy, studio, director, or sweaty teenager, it is just as infinitely available. Any availability restrictions are artificial. Artificial restrictions are as morally wrong to me as acknowledging infinity seems to be to you.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: i WONDER
Especially when the original, no matter the condition, was less than optimal by modern standards. Like the re-release of Snow White. It looks great, but... that's not how it looked originally. There may have been some fading over time, but I kinda doubt it was that dramatic. Especially since I've heard a few "original watchers" saying it looked better than (or garish in comparison to) what they remembered.
My point is, remastering can be good, but it's not what people are asking for. They just want a copy of what the studio has in their vault. Yes, it kinda sucks compared to a 1080p 7.1 surround copy, but I want the original movie, not your "improved" version. I don't want a colorized copy of Casablanca or Metropolis. I just want a copy. I don't care if it's not up to your "standards," as long it's close to the original.
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Documentaries
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: There is the crux of the problem
On the post: High Prices, Lack Of Availability Driving Lots Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Documentaries
If your customers want you to include a screwdriver and slimjim with the car they buy from you, why the hell wouldn't you?
Better yet, and on topic, why not just sell me a car that I, the owner, can use with the gasoline I can get at a gas station, instead of having to buy the gas that the dealer sells?
Even better, let's deal with some of the real issues that are being discussed.
In this magical fairyland you refer to that has cars that can both be stolen, and the owner can still make full use of them, car designers/companies/dealers no longer have the same place in the market. Everyone has a matter replicator in their house. Why should I pay the same price for a set of blueprints as I do for a fully functional car that I can use right now?
"but, Pirates!"
No, if I want a guarantee that my car won't blow up and kill my family (viruses), I will buy the official blueprint, if the price is fair. If it's not fair, I will buy a car from a second-hand dealer. If I don't care about the quality of my car, or the safety of my family, nothing you do will EVER convince me to either pay for your blueprints, or buy a car off you lot. That is because I would be an idiot. But that's my problem. You still have a huge market of non-idiots that want to give you their money. Just not as much as you ask.
Any restrictions you place on your cars effect ONLY your paying customers. Because the pirated copies of the car are identical to the real cars, down to the VIN, and (magical) aura-stamp. And now the guy that bought the car from you directly wants to know why Bob can start his car with a car key, instead of having to connect his car to your network, waiting to get authorization, and hoping the gas downloads correctly this time.
On the post: Justice Department Wants To Be Able To Lie In Response To Freedom Of Information Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Only two types of people can disagree with the person holding a gun to their head: professionals and maniacs, and most people can't tell the difference, anyways..."
-(roughly) Mass Effect 2
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re: Re: Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re: Re: Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
Shit. I meant to say 20 MB/s. Not... Wait. I'll be right back...
Right. 20 Mb/s, not gb/s. Whups.
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re: Okay, this is getting pathetic. When's it going to stop?
Since the DRM is tied to the "digital copy" that is included in the price of the DVD, it IS a review of the product. Specifically, the not-working part of the product. So, so much for straw-man arguments.
Plus, how many people with the time and willingness to use the digital copy aren't tech-savvy enough to expect better? My parents and sister buy a movie with a digital copy "because it's digital," and because they expect it to work just like bittorrent (and Steam). Download and play. Anywhere. Anytime. Why? Because it makes sense. Because we pay $50+ a month for 20 gb/s internet, and our end can handle the bandwidth, why can't theirs? Because anyone with access to a search engine can find a copy that works better.
We don't want free. We want function. We want a price that is justified by the content. If you can't justify your price with your content, your price isn't worth it. So I won't pay it.
I will never buy a DVD with this broken DRM included, and if I can get to them first to explain the problem, neither will anyone in my family.
On the post: Hollywood's Kinder, Gentler DRM: UltraViolet, Getting Slammed In Reviews
Re:
Of course, I should just be grateful that I'm allowed to pay for a version of the movie that may work when the stars are aligned and I sacrifice a kitten to 'Mtumakalumba, since it's different.
On the post: EU Politician Wants Internet Surveillance Built Into Every Operating System
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally!
Decrying anonymity anonymously just seems screwed up to me...
On the post: Failed Company, Now Patent Troll, Sues Apple Over Transferrable Playlists For A Third Time
Re: Let's blame the victim...
My PS3 syncs playlists. My phone syncs playlists. They ain't suing Samsung or Sony.
On the post: Want Revenue From Used Games? Just Have GameStop Buy DLC Codes For The Customer
Re: Re: Steam FTW
On the post: Amtrak Lets You Surf The Web While Traveling, But Don't Try To Read Anything About Gay People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A private company. Beholden to the government, but private nonetheless.
On the post: Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else... But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone?
Re: Jobs
Can someone, somewhere, please point me to someplace that can say why Jobs is somehow more evil than the ~15% of the non-luddite community that is atheist, or is it just because he admitted publicly that he was raised "Christian" (a more vague term, you will hardly ever meet)?
On the post: Dailydirt: GMO Food -- You Are What You Eat?
About the "made sterile"...
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Re: Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)
Next >>