You had a fast change of heart this week. Did you get a koolaid injection or something?
I think you have me confused with someone else. As a side note: you can click on the word "profile" next to my name and see all my past comments.
My point only is that Radiohead stopped feeding the freetard seagulls, realizing that they were wasting their time trying to cultivate an audience in a group of people who has no intention of being consumers for this sort of product.
I have tried several times to respond to this statement, but it's proving to be tough, because it is *so* wrong that any way I choose to respond to it requires explaining to you the very basics of the internet, which is no small task. However, in the interest of a friendly discussion, I'm going to give it a shot: Radiohead does not have to do *any* extra work to "feeding the freetard seagulls". All they have to do is make music. In fact, the usual gnashing of teeth and sending the lawyers after file sharers expends *more* energy than just ignoring them. You are suggesting that they had to go out of their way to offer their last album as "pay what you want"-- but they did not. As a side note, I feel that pay what you want is the way to go. If I wanted their album, but not at $9, my last remaining option would be piracy, which means they get nothing. If I could pay what I wanted, they could get what I was willing to pay and if that ends up being $1, that's $1 more than with a structured price scheme. At any rate, I get unlimited music with Rdio for $10, so one album for $9 is stupid. You'll see.
I expressed an opinion, too bad you don't agree. Get over it.
Your opinion was not humorous at all. So, starting your opinion with "the funny thing is.." seems odd. Unless you were pretending that you knew the future *and* you didn't know the difference between "funny" and "ironic". I'm over it, now. :)
I would think that a note in passing (and perhaps some commentary on how this plays for Wikileaks) might be in order. The silence is sort of deafening.
How many times have you read Mike say "I wasn't even going to mention this, but it keeps getting submitted.."? Did *you* submit the story? I know I didn't, because nothing new came out *except* that he was going to get extradited. That's something I knew from my news feed. There's not much to elaborate on it-- since no new data has been discovered, so an entire post on a opinion blog about a story that has already been covered because of one new fact doesn't seem like good time management. I'm sure you covered it six ways to Sunday on your blog. Go ahead and link it so I can be properly informed?
It is sort of like how the facts of the Radiohead deal were ignored (such as the concept that the shiny plastic disc versions "outsold" the online stuff in their first week alone).
I find entertainment, I find a mental challenge, and I find incredible humor in the study of what Mike says and does. We joke about kool-aid here a lot, but really, techdirt is about forming a cult of sorts, of assembling people.
Well, if calling people names in lieu of having a sound argument gives you a mental challenge... well, you said it, not me.
Exactly. And seriously, do you win money or something if you're the best at one of these games? I don't understand the *point* in cheating at a video game against other people.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These are people who are showing up for the free lunch, and will head down the street for the next free lunch tomorrow, without any consideration to come back to your business again.
Exactly! So, you should focus on suing those people into oblivion, that way they won't take whatever you're peddling without paying, and instead just ignore it completely! That's *sure* to increase revenue!
The funniest part being that they will probably get the same number of sales (if not more) by not feeding the 'tards.
The funniest part is how you are making something up with absolutely zero basis in reality or even factual information, and you think it proves your point.
What is troubling here is that Mike has chosen to ignore the story (he also didn't mention that Assange lost his legal fight and is off to Sweden).
Yes, very troubling that a tech site didn't mention that an editor was being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges. If/When he is extradited to the US, I'm positive we will see it here.
The Radiohead experiment #2, if it shows any useful data, will no doubt be covered when that data is released. What if it tanks, and they make 10% of sales? You're acting as if Mike is avoiding this story, but he already covered Radiohead's decision to not go with "pay what you want" for this album.
Seriously dude, if you don't like what Mike writes about, don't come to techdirt. We won't miss you, as you never seem to bring anything to the table. I don't troll RIAA blogs (do they allow comments?) calling people names, because I don't see a point in it.
Doesn't this also mean that copyright is no longer needed, as it exists to give incentive for the creation of art at the detriment to society at large by keeping said art out of the public domain?
So, if the pros of copyright are gone, but the cons remain, the copyright should be abolished, yes?
But if you consider that the money that would have been spent on a game is instead spent on something else that would compete with gaming time (say, I dunno, another hobby), then not only are you losing a potential consumer, but you are also feeding your wider competition.
I'm really glad you brought it here. So, if I can't spend $60 on your game, but I can afford a $20 novel, it *hurts* you if I pirate your game? The obvious solution is to lower the price of your game. It's called competition. Ya know, high school level economics? Either way, I'm not buying your game-- but if I like it, I may budget to buy the sequel.
Words of god himself.
As for the increased money in the music industry? A lot of that is actually due to new offerings, such as Spotify.
So, spake the Mike? (Thanks for the link, though, just the same!)
Speaking of, I *love* the all-you-can-stream music business model. The only problem is the record labels insist on making it cumbersome because they're (apparently) afraid I'm going to infringe on their copyrights. But, I'm actually a paying customer, so I don't understand why they think that. I'm looking forward to Spotify in the US, in spite of the label's attempts to reject my money.
Actually, I don't remember CD prices ever going up. If anything, I have seen them come down.
Really? Were you around before iTunes? I only ask because from their adoption until iTunes' adoption, the price of new CDs only went up. After everyone realized it makes zero sense to buy plastic to take data off of it and throw it away, *then* prices went down. So, in the last 10 years, yes, prices have fallen quite a bit. But, who is still buying CDs, really? :P As for the rest of it, I have no proof, unfortunately, except for the experiences of living through it all as a music fan. So, if you so desire, take it all with a grain of salt.
It's pretty hard, because even government reports are often based on studies from one side or the other, like:
Um.. how to put this? Yeah, if the report you cite has in it, anywhere, the phrase "revenues lost due to the work of a high-tech cat burglar— the software pirate" you can be sure of at least two things: 1) That it is biased and 2) That I will stop reading when I get to that phrase, because it's obviously biased. Thank you again, for the link, just the same.
If you can forecast a 10% increase in sales because of reduced piracy, and you can perhaps lower the amount of time and money spent on securing the product, it is reasonable to assume that product prices would be lower.
This seems to be an oft-used line of reasoning, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. No one is forcing anyone to come up with ever elaborate means of making their product less useful... err.., I mean, "securing their product", this is just their reaction to the "threat" of piracy. This *is* a chicken/egg scenario-- they are reacting to piracy by giving a reason to pirate!
We each live our lives within the means we have.
..and with high speed internet, a solid distribution infrastructure aka p2p, cheap storage and ever falling hardware prices, the only reason more people can't experience more culture is greed. The only reason our culture is locked away is because people are being punished for sharing their culture with each other.
I actually think that netflix (and game sharing companies with monthly subscriptions) are an excellent choice both for industry and consumers.
I totally agree. 100%. However, I don't understand why I have to wait until after a movie is in the theater, and then on-demand, and then for sale on DVD, and THEN another 28 days before I can watch it. I simply won't pay for that. I *really* want to get a netflix subscription. However, the industry is making it undesirable to me, and what I ask is within their power. They don't want my money? I have no experience with the gaming version of netflix, (gamefly?) but I have been meaning to check it out. (Games are expensive!) They'd be able to get me easier if my monthly subscription could be used towards a game to buy, once a month. (If I found a game I want to own, which happens occasionally.)
The music industry has been gutted, even while turning out a product that people value highly and seek out aggressively
Gutted, and making record numbers? Oh, did you mean the Recording Industry? Times change, and for some industries, people lose jobs, or make less money-- but that does not mean forward progress should be halted. As Mike has often pointed out, what if these media companies got their way with the VCR, or the DVR or every other "threat" to their business model? Would we be better off? Would smart phones exist? Would iPods? Would computers?
It would be different if people were not consuming what the record labels put out, but one look at your typical music trading site finds almost exclusively label content being traded.
I have an opinion that it is solely because people are force fed it from every orifice and they don't know any better. I think, based on that opinion, that if the record labels succeed in pushing away the fans, people will realize that this cookie-cutter, creativity-by-number crap that is "popular" is as much "art" as shoving paint up your ass and shitting it on a canvas, and it will cease to be. So, I am torn, as you might guess. :)
It hurts those who would choose to invest in new music (because they risk getting no return)
Maybe I'm confused. I was under the impression that musicians made art long before they signed to a label. Is this not how it works? Do the labels cold-call people, these days, and inspire them to make new art for them?
and it hurts the artists (who can no longer be only recording or studio artists, but must give up part of their life to perform live to be able to hopefully record more one day).
Live performances are not the silver bullet to being successful. Connecting with your fans in *some* way is. That can be through touring, or through some other way. It could be that the record labels' new role in this new music landscape is less distribution, and more enabling artists to connect with fans. I don't know. No one does. Scary, isn't it?
Short term, the "fan" gets a ton more music as they fill in their back catalog, but after a while, they get fewer and fewer new songs, and things stagnate.
It's scary that you *really* seem to believe that people will stop making art because some executives can't make obscene amounts of profit tricking people into buying an infinite good.
Sorry about the wall of text. Always interested in a response!
If people want something, they will buy it if they can afford it. If they cannot afford it, they do without.
If they cannot afford it, but can get a copy for free, is there any harm? If they *can* afford it, but don't feel the asking price is reasonable, but they can get a copy for free, is there any harm? In both of these scenarios, there would be no sale if piracy did not exist, so they are not a lost sale, and are not doing harm to the artist's bottom line. Further, any informal promotion these hypothetical people do is a net gain, since it is free promotion. Free promotion is a good thing, right?
IPRED - when this became law in Sweden, file trading activity went down, and sales of recorded music went up.
You are correct, *shortly* after IPRED became law, there was a dip in file sharing (though I do not recall a bump in music sales- link, please?) but it has since gone back *above* where it was before. Swedish officials believe that file sharing didn't go down at all, it just went further underground. (link) So, your best example to date is a bad example, yes?
If more people paid the price, the price could be lower.
Oh, so all those years that CD sales kept going up and up, they should have been going down? I see. Seriously, though, it's not a chicken/egg scenario. It costs almost nothing to make copies of mp3s. Pretending that it costs millions of dollars to record a song (it doesn't), shouldn't the song on itunes drop from the $1.29 price to the $0.99 price and then to the almost unused $0.79 price? I don't believe that, were piracy wiped off the planet tomorrow, prices would go anywhere but *up*. If anything, piracy is a pressure relief valve on big media's greed.
The high price of content / media / software often is taking into account some of the losses to piracy
If you have proof of a non-industry study on these supposed losses, I will cede you this point. All it takes is one link. Try me. :)
But pirates don't have to make an economic decision (food or new game) that the rest of us make in the real world.
This is a very telling statement. You assume that there is a difference between pirates and "the rest of us". It has been discussed here many times that so called pirates spend more on media than average. What people can spend on media in a set period is obviously less than the amount of media they can consume over that period. Back to my first point, if they weren't going to (or couldn't) buy it even if there was no piracy, then how does it hurt you if they get it for free?
Obviously, choosing the pirated product eliminates the "food or game" dilemma, but if you eliminate or make that choice to pirate less attractive, people will once again make choices.
You want people to experience *less* art because they need to save money for food? That's an interesting stance. You probably really hate museums, too, because they spread culture to those who would otherwise not be able to experience it. The bastards!
If people really want something, they will buy it if they can afford it. If they cannot, they will do without.
Again, if they can get it for free even though they can't afford it, how does it hurt *anyone*? (Maybe the middle men?)
Make pirating content less attractive, and suddenly the feet and the wallets are heading back to legal sources.
This has never once been shown, so if you have some proof, I would be interested to see it. Logically, it is false: I've accepted something for free that I wouldn't pay for if it wasn't free. Everyone has. Some would, I have no doubt, but considering the amount of money being dumped into fighting piracy I cannot imagine it will be worth it.
It's been proven over and over again (and is proven every day on your favorite torrent sites): People want the content. They would pay for it if they had no alternative.
This is an interesting spin on the reasons to pirate. Wouldn't a simpler conclusion be that the current price of the media being pirated is above what the majority of the market is willing to pay?
When they no longer feel they can get away with it, they will be back to buying it, because they value it and they want it.
Again, your grasp on economics seems a tad shaky, and your grasp on human nature isn't much better.
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you have me confused with someone else. As a side note: you can click on the word "profile" next to my name and see all my past comments.
My point only is that Radiohead stopped feeding the freetard seagulls, realizing that they were wasting their time trying to cultivate an audience in a group of people who has no intention of being consumers for this sort of product.
I have tried several times to respond to this statement, but it's proving to be tough, because it is *so* wrong that any way I choose to respond to it requires explaining to you the very basics of the internet, which is no small task. However, in the interest of a friendly discussion, I'm going to give it a shot: Radiohead does not have to do *any* extra work to "feeding the freetard seagulls". All they have to do is make music. In fact, the usual gnashing of teeth and sending the lawyers after file sharers expends *more* energy than just ignoring them. You are suggesting that they had to go out of their way to offer their last album as "pay what you want"-- but they did not. As a side note, I feel that pay what you want is the way to go. If I wanted their album, but not at $9, my last remaining option would be piracy, which means they get nothing. If I could pay what I wanted, they could get what I was willing to pay and if that ends up being $1, that's $1 more than with a structured price scheme. At any rate, I get unlimited music with Rdio for $10, so one album for $9 is stupid. You'll see.
I expressed an opinion, too bad you don't agree. Get over it.
Your opinion was not humorous at all. So, starting your opinion with "the funny thing is.." seems odd. Unless you were pretending that you knew the future *and* you didn't know the difference between "funny" and "ironic". I'm over it, now. :)
I would think that a note in passing (and perhaps some commentary on how this plays for Wikileaks) might be in order. The silence is sort of deafening.
How many times have you read Mike say "I wasn't even going to mention this, but it keeps getting submitted.."? Did *you* submit the story? I know I didn't, because nothing new came out *except* that he was going to get extradited. That's something I knew from my news feed. There's not much to elaborate on it-- since no new data has been discovered, so an entire post on a opinion blog about a story that has already been covered because of one new fact doesn't seem like good time management. I'm sure you covered it six ways to Sunday on your blog. Go ahead and link it so I can be properly informed?
It is sort of like how the facts of the Radiohead deal were ignored (such as the concept that the shiny plastic disc versions "outsold" the online stuff in their first week alone).
Yes, Techdirt never mentioned at all that Radiohead's Physical Album [was] Selling Well. You've got me there. :)
I find entertainment, I find a mental challenge, and I find incredible humor in the study of what Mike says and does. We joke about kool-aid here a lot, but really, techdirt is about forming a cult of sorts, of assembling people.
Well, if calling people names in lieu of having a sound argument gives you a mental challenge... well, you said it, not me.
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think that the poster I responded to does not know what "FUD" means.
On the post: Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
Re: Re:
On the post: Sony's Neverending War Against The Freedom To Tinker And Innovate
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Hiring?
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! So, you should focus on suing those people into oblivion, that way they won't take whatever you're peddling without paying, and instead just ignore it completely! That's *sure* to increase revenue!
The funniest part being that they will probably get the same number of sales (if not more) by not feeding the 'tards.
The funniest part is how you are making something up with absolutely zero basis in reality or even factual information, and you think it proves your point.
What is troubling here is that Mike has chosen to ignore the story (he also didn't mention that Assange lost his legal fight and is off to Sweden).
Yes, very troubling that a tech site didn't mention that an editor was being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges. If/When he is extradited to the US, I'm positive we will see it here.
The Radiohead experiment #2, if it shows any useful data, will no doubt be covered when that data is released. What if it tanks, and they make 10% of sales? You're acting as if Mike is avoiding this story, but he already covered Radiohead's decision to not go with "pay what you want" for this album.
Seriously dude, if you don't like what Mike writes about, don't come to techdirt. We won't miss you, as you never seem to bring anything to the table. I don't troll RIAA blogs (do they allow comments?) calling people names, because I don't see a point in it.
What point do *you* find in it?
On the post: Righthaven So Busy Filing Lawsuits It Forgot To Renew Its Business License?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
On the post: 'Consumer' Group Wants Netflix To Tax Customers To Give To Telcos?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, this is epically stupid
Yeah, if you're American, the fourth graph already told us that. :P
On the post: iiNet Wins Again: Australian Appeals Court Says ISP Not Responsible For Copyright Infringers
Re:
On the post: Is Copying The Idea For A Magazine Cover Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ha!
Interesting. :)
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if the pros of copyright are gone, but the cons remain, the copyright should be abolished, yes?
That *is* great news! :)
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm really glad you brought it here. So, if I can't spend $60 on your game, but I can afford a $20 novel, it *hurts* you if I pirate your game? The obvious solution is to lower the price of your game. It's called competition. Ya know, high school level economics? Either way, I'm not buying your game-- but if I like it, I may budget to buy the sequel.
Words of god himself.
So, spake the Mike? (Thanks for the link, though, just the same!)
Speaking of, I *love* the all-you-can-stream music business model. The only problem is the record labels insist on making it cumbersome because they're (apparently) afraid I'm going to infringe on their copyrights. But, I'm actually a paying customer, so I don't understand why they think that. I'm looking forward to Spotify in the US, in spite of the label's attempts to reject my money.
Actually, I don't remember CD prices ever going up. If anything, I have seen them come down.
Really? Were you around before iTunes? I only ask because from their adoption until iTunes' adoption, the price of new CDs only went up. After everyone realized it makes zero sense to buy plastic to take data off of it and throw it away, *then* prices went down. So, in the last 10 years, yes, prices have fallen quite a bit. But, who is still buying CDs, really? :P As for the rest of it, I have no proof, unfortunately, except for the experiences of living through it all as a music fan. So, if you so desire, take it all with a grain of salt.
It's pretty hard, because even government reports are often based on studies from one side or the other, like:
Um.. how to put this? Yeah, if the report you cite has in it, anywhere, the phrase "revenues lost due to the work of a high-tech cat burglar— the software pirate" you can be sure of at least two things: 1) That it is biased and 2) That I will stop reading when I get to that phrase, because it's obviously biased. Thank you again, for the link, just the same.
If you can forecast a 10% increase in sales because of reduced piracy, and you can perhaps lower the amount of time and money spent on securing the product, it is reasonable to assume that product prices would be lower.
This seems to be an oft-used line of reasoning, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. No one is forcing anyone to come up with ever elaborate means of making their product less useful... err.., I mean, "securing their product", this is just their reaction to the "threat" of piracy. This *is* a chicken/egg scenario-- they are reacting to piracy by giving a reason to pirate!
We each live our lives within the means we have.
..and with high speed internet, a solid distribution infrastructure aka p2p, cheap storage and ever falling hardware prices, the only reason more people can't experience more culture is greed. The only reason our culture is locked away is because people are being punished for sharing their culture with each other.
I actually think that netflix (and game sharing companies with monthly subscriptions) are an excellent choice both for industry and consumers.
I totally agree. 100%. However, I don't understand why I have to wait until after a movie is in the theater, and then on-demand, and then for sale on DVD, and THEN another 28 days before I can watch it. I simply won't pay for that. I *really* want to get a netflix subscription. However, the industry is making it undesirable to me, and what I ask is within their power. They don't want my money? I have no experience with the gaming version of netflix, (gamefly?) but I have been meaning to check it out. (Games are expensive!) They'd be able to get me easier if my monthly subscription could be used towards a game to buy, once a month. (If I found a game I want to own, which happens occasionally.)
The music industry has been gutted, even while turning out a product that people value highly and seek out aggressively
Gutted, and making record numbers? Oh, did you mean the Recording Industry? Times change, and for some industries, people lose jobs, or make less money-- but that does not mean forward progress should be halted. As Mike has often pointed out, what if these media companies got their way with the VCR, or the DVR or every other "threat" to their business model? Would we be better off? Would smart phones exist? Would iPods? Would computers?
It would be different if people were not consuming what the record labels put out, but one look at your typical music trading site finds almost exclusively label content being traded.
I have an opinion that it is solely because people are force fed it from every orifice and they don't know any better. I think, based on that opinion, that if the record labels succeed in pushing away the fans, people will realize that this cookie-cutter, creativity-by-number crap that is "popular" is as much "art" as shoving paint up your ass and shitting it on a canvas, and it will cease to be. So, I am torn, as you might guess. :)
It hurts those who would choose to invest in new music (because they risk getting no return)
Maybe I'm confused. I was under the impression that musicians made art long before they signed to a label. Is this not how it works? Do the labels cold-call people, these days, and inspire them to make new art for them?
and it hurts the artists (who can no longer be only recording or studio artists, but must give up part of their life to perform live to be able to hopefully record more one day).
Live performances are not the silver bullet to being successful. Connecting with your fans in *some* way is. That can be through touring, or through some other way. It could be that the record labels' new role in this new music landscape is less distribution, and more enabling artists to connect with fans. I don't know. No one does. Scary, isn't it?
Short term, the "fan" gets a ton more music as they fill in their back catalog, but after a while, they get fewer and fewer new songs, and things stagnate.
It's scary that you *really* seem to believe that people will stop making art because some executives can't make obscene amounts of profit tricking people into buying an infinite good.
Sorry about the wall of text. Always interested in a response!
On the post: Is Copying The Idea For A Magazine Cover Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Ha!
On the post: Is Copying The Idea For A Magazine Cover Infringement?
Re: Re: Ha!
On the post: Is Copying The Idea For A Magazine Cover Infringement?
Re:
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: make pirating not as attractive
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they cannot afford it, but can get a copy for free, is there any harm? If they *can* afford it, but don't feel the asking price is reasonable, but they can get a copy for free, is there any harm? In both of these scenarios, there would be no sale if piracy did not exist, so they are not a lost sale, and are not doing harm to the artist's bottom line. Further, any informal promotion these hypothetical people do is a net gain, since it is free promotion. Free promotion is a good thing, right?
IPRED - when this became law in Sweden, file trading activity went down, and sales of recorded music went up.
You are correct, *shortly* after IPRED became law, there was a dip in file sharing (though I do not recall a bump in music sales- link, please?) but it has since gone back *above* where it was before. Swedish officials believe that file sharing didn't go down at all, it just went further underground. (link) So, your best example to date is a bad example, yes?
If more people paid the price, the price could be lower.
Oh, so all those years that CD sales kept going up and up, they should have been going down? I see. Seriously, though, it's not a chicken/egg scenario. It costs almost nothing to make copies of mp3s. Pretending that it costs millions of dollars to record a song (it doesn't), shouldn't the song on itunes drop from the $1.29 price to the $0.99 price and then to the almost unused $0.79 price? I don't believe that, were piracy wiped off the planet tomorrow, prices would go anywhere but *up*. If anything, piracy is a pressure relief valve on big media's greed.
The high price of content / media / software often is taking into account some of the losses to piracy
If you have proof of a non-industry study on these supposed losses, I will cede you this point. All it takes is one link. Try me. :)
But pirates don't have to make an economic decision (food or new game) that the rest of us make in the real world.
This is a very telling statement. You assume that there is a difference between pirates and "the rest of us". It has been discussed here many times that so called pirates spend more on media than average. What people can spend on media in a set period is obviously less than the amount of media they can consume over that period. Back to my first point, if they weren't going to (or couldn't) buy it even if there was no piracy, then how does it hurt you if they get it for free?
Obviously, choosing the pirated product eliminates the "food or game" dilemma, but if you eliminate or make that choice to pirate less attractive, people will once again make choices.
You want people to experience *less* art because they need to save money for food? That's an interesting stance. You probably really hate museums, too, because they spread culture to those who would otherwise not be able to experience it. The bastards!
If people really want something, they will buy it if they can afford it. If they cannot, they will do without.
Again, if they can get it for free even though they can't afford it, how does it hurt *anyone*? (Maybe the middle men?)
I'm interested in reading your responses!
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re:
This has never once been shown, so if you have some proof, I would be interested to see it. Logically, it is false: I've accepted something for free that I wouldn't pay for if it wasn't free. Everyone has. Some would, I have no doubt, but considering the amount of money being dumped into fighting piracy I cannot imagine it will be worth it.
It's been proven over and over again (and is proven every day on your favorite torrent sites): People want the content. They would pay for it if they had no alternative.
This is an interesting spin on the reasons to pirate. Wouldn't a simpler conclusion be that the current price of the media being pirated is above what the majority of the market is willing to pay?
When they no longer feel they can get away with it, they will be back to buying it, because they value it and they want it.
Again, your grasp on economics seems a tad shaky, and your grasp on human nature isn't much better.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re:
On the post: Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When Censorship comes home
Be sure to read the note, it tells how many times they've changed this part to make it worse.
Next >>