This is why - I still do not have a personal cell phone. Too much cost for what they are worth. If I didn't have one from work - well, I'd get pestered a lot less :)
I'm not going to pay $70+ a month to get pestered.
True, but there is more evidence to indicate that some of these people might have purchased the movie than there is evidence to indicate that they would not have done so.
Historically - broadcast radio and TV would seemingly prove that argument wrong.
I'd be curious - what evidence would compel an artist or company to put content on the radio or TV and then broadcast it for 'free' to people?
Maybe there's some money changing going on between companies in the background, but the 'consumer' pays nothing for it.
Let's look at a hypothetical situational based on the type of response of - say police policy.. in an area.
When it comes to speeders, there are - like file sharing a variety of situations.
(And anyone who's even sped, parked illegally, etc - who's calling out file sharers is a hypocrite. You can't pick and choose what laws to follow)
Let's say you are responsible for police policy in an area that's mostly a 'resort' type of area that makes most of it's income from tourism.
*Option 1:*
Now, if you have your police officers busting down everyone who's 5 MPH over the speed limit, throwing the book at them and giving out max fines - what do you think is going to happen to your 'tourism' business over time? How many of you are going to go back to a vacation spot if you got slammed with a 500.00 fine for a 5 MPH infraction?
Now let's look at another possible 'action' police policy could dictate..
*Option 2:*
If the person speeding is going 20 MPH over the speed limit - that's quite reasonable to give a fine that will clearly 'remind' them, that excessive speed is not tolerated. But on a 5 MPH or 10 MPH infraction, the officer simply pulls you over and 'warns' you about speeding through the area.
Which of the two policies will net the city/region more money?
Perhaps option one will *at first* as they are getting some big short term cash for fines due to an intolerant policy.
But in the long term, option 1 will make people think twice about going back to the area at all.
It's a relevant analogy; as in this case and the case of file sharing; yes, laws are being broken.
But there's a BIG difference between a 5 MPH infraction or downloading a couple movies as opposed to a 20 MPH infraction and burning DVDs in mass quantity to sell on the streets.
So yeah - smack your customers around, or potential customers - but it's probably most accurate to say 'former customers'.
And yes, they ARE IN FACT potential customers. I don't know one single person, that doesn't own some DVD's. Some more than others, some never download stuff others download a lot.
So to sum it up, I'm guessing those who are ok with 'throwing the book' at someone who's downloaded a few movies are also ok with MAX fines for 5 MPH the speed limit, right?
How about sending an invoice for $19.99 and a link to download a high quality version of the movie.
That's a good idea, really.
If they were to contact the ISP's - say they don't want to sue, but could you send a copy of this letter to the user?
They could provide a link, explain why it's better to own a real copy, explain how they need to maintain a bit of a profit to stay in business and profit will equal better quality movies, etc, etc..
Then if they were real smart - for the $19.99 they could offer the download + maybe a movie poster or a link to the soundtrack as a 'bonus'.
I bet in the end, it would net them more money than lawsuits that end up forcing people into bankruptcy, or well - could.
I guess they missed the old cliche "You'll get more bees with honey than vinegar".
Seriously, look at the track record, look at their goals, is there any shred of doubt as to what they would do with the power to restrict the internet?
On the post: French Senator Proposes Outlawing Anonymous Blogging
On the post: Careful With That Fake Social Networking Profile; If You 'Personate' Someone, You Can Go To Jail
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Perhaps at first it might, then next thing you know, you will have a 'WiFi' additional tax to your local income or property tax.
This is just a case of them being a 'bit' more 'honest' about it - I guess.... lol
On the post: AT&T No Longer Offering Unlimited Data Plan To New Customers
I'm not going to pay $70+ a month to get pestered.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
On the post: Guy Who Encouraged People To Commit Suicide Online Banned From The Internet
But heck... some people would think it's a good idea: www.waragainsttheweak.com
On the post: Justice Department Asking Questions About Apple Trying To Block Labels From Offering Deals To Amazon
On the post: When Anti-Pirates Sue Each Other Over Pirating Each Other's Technology...
On the post: Can We Please Put The 'Amateur Brain Surgeon' Strawman To Rest?
On the post: A Look At Just How Much The RIAA Clogged The Court System With Mass Copyright Suits
Odd too, how until recently broadcast radio and TV made loads of cash, even though the customers didn't 'pay' to listen or watch...
All without lawsuits.
If they just spent HALF the time innovating as they do suing, they'd be much better off.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Anyone want to 'guess' on that statistic? :)
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Historically - broadcast radio and TV would seemingly prove that argument wrong.
I'd be curious - what evidence would compel an artist or company to put content on the radio or TV and then broadcast it for 'free' to people?
Maybe there's some money changing going on between companies in the background, but the 'consumer' pays nothing for it.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
When it comes to speeders, there are - like file sharing a variety of situations.
(And anyone who's even sped, parked illegally, etc - who's calling out file sharers is a hypocrite. You can't pick and choose what laws to follow)
Let's say you are responsible for police policy in an area that's mostly a 'resort' type of area that makes most of it's income from tourism.
*Option 1:*
Now, if you have your police officers busting down everyone who's 5 MPH over the speed limit, throwing the book at them and giving out max fines - what do you think is going to happen to your 'tourism' business over time? How many of you are going to go back to a vacation spot if you got slammed with a 500.00 fine for a 5 MPH infraction?
Now let's look at another possible 'action' police policy could dictate..
*Option 2:*
If the person speeding is going 20 MPH over the speed limit - that's quite reasonable to give a fine that will clearly 'remind' them, that excessive speed is not tolerated. But on a 5 MPH or 10 MPH infraction, the officer simply pulls you over and 'warns' you about speeding through the area.
Which of the two policies will net the city/region more money?
Perhaps option one will *at first* as they are getting some big short term cash for fines due to an intolerant policy.
But in the long term, option 1 will make people think twice about going back to the area at all.
It's a relevant analogy; as in this case and the case of file sharing; yes, laws are being broken.
But there's a BIG difference between a 5 MPH infraction or downloading a couple movies as opposed to a 20 MPH infraction and burning DVDs in mass quantity to sell on the streets.
So yeah - smack your customers around, or potential customers - but it's probably most accurate to say 'former customers'.
And yes, they ARE IN FACT potential customers. I don't know one single person, that doesn't own some DVD's. Some more than others, some never download stuff others download a lot.
So to sum it up, I'm guessing those who are ok with 'throwing the book' at someone who's downloaded a few movies are also ok with MAX fines for 5 MPH the speed limit, right?
On the post: Air Force PS3 Supercomputer Screwed By Sony Killing Off Linux Support
But then, Sony's not been known for the best business decisions.
On the post: Bad Ideas: Hurt Locker Producers Preparing To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers
That's a good idea, really.
If they were to contact the ISP's - say they don't want to sue, but could you send a copy of this letter to the user?
They could provide a link, explain why it's better to own a real copy, explain how they need to maintain a bit of a profit to stay in business and profit will equal better quality movies, etc, etc..
Then if they were real smart - for the $19.99 they could offer the download + maybe a movie poster or a link to the soundtrack as a 'bonus'.
I bet in the end, it would net them more money than lawsuits that end up forcing people into bankruptcy, or well - could.
I guess they missed the old cliche "You'll get more bees with honey than vinegar".
On the post: If It's May It's Time For The Press To Parrot Bogus Stats Announcement From The BSA
On the post: Funny How A Little Public Pressure Makes Artist's Estate Back Down
On the post: Can The Government Really Walk The Line Of Regulating The Internet Without Screwing It Up?
+100
Yep.
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
On the post: Laptop Scandal School's Own Law Firm: Aside From Those 58,000 Spy Photos, There's No Evidence Of Spying
Next >>