Balta brings up a great point here:

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...p;#entry2537157

 

Soxtalk could be completely shut down and scrubbed from all Google searches etc. if a company who owned a copyrighted article copied in full to this forum requested it.

 

edit: I've also read, from numerous sources, that this wouldn't actually do anything to seriously stop piracy. It'd be about as effective as the War on Drugs, with less bloodshed but still huge disparate impacts on everyone but the RIAA/MPAA.

 

If the entire thing is passed, which it's clearly not going to be.

 

 

I'll add too that I think the MPAA and similar organizations are looking to the future here. At some point people are going to stop going to movie theaters. Yes, there will still be a few here and there, but like movie rental stores, they'll basically all die in favor of online streaming/downloads. Same with music (digital will take over CD sales this year) and books (same trend). They know the majority of their future potential is going to be digital distribution. So again, if i've already got a nice clean digital copy of a pirated show or movie, why would I then purchase another digital copy of the same thing?

Edited January 19, 201214 yr by Jenksismybitch

Anonymous Claims Retaliation Attacks On DOJ, RIAA, Universal After MegaUpload Bust

How can they make profits and allow piracy? I have yet to figure out a business model that allows for a company to make money while allowing someone to pirate their work.

 

It's not like they haven't been very profitable over the last decade.

 

That Cato article links to a study that estimates the deadweight loss accounting for something like 80% of pirated downloads--meaning that only 20% of downloads represent someone who may have been a paying customer.

I'll add too that I think the MPAA and similar organizations are looking to the future here. At some point people are going to stop going to movie theaters.

 

This is not true, imo, because there's always compelling reasons to go to a movie theater to see a quality movie. I'd rather go to the theater than watch it at home, generally speaking, if it's a movie worth watching. The reality is that decent movies, let alone good ones, are few and far between these days since the movie studios insist on cranking out crap remakes and sequels and ideas-done-a-million-times.

 

If the quality is there, people will pay. This is empirically true.

 

Yes, there will still be a few here and there, but like movie rental stores, they'll basically all die in favor of online streaming/downloads. Same with music (digital will take over CD sales this year) and books (same trend). They know the majority of their future potential is going to be digital distribution. So again, if i've already got a nice clean digital copy of a pirated show or movie, why would I then purchase another digital copy of the same thing?

 

We moralize against theft would be one reason.

 

I could very easily cancel my Netflix and Hulu subscriptions and torrent everything, but I don't because I am morally opposed to that.

 

The profitability arguments don't really fly these days. Maybe back in 2001 when all this stuff was really coming to a head (with music anyway) and you didn't have the memory capabilities we have today. Back then you might have downloaded a few albums and then grabbed a copy of the CD so you could listen to it on the road or something. But nowadays everything can be digital and you can take it anywhere you want to go (via a flashdrive, memory card, smartphone, external hard drive, etc)

 

Are we really naive enough to think that if I'm watching Lost or The Dark Knight off a torrent (in 1080p, 5.1 quality...not some s***ty grainy version) that I'm going to then go waste 25 bucks on the blu-ray copy? Or after I finish a book on my e-reader i'm going to get the hard copy?

 

Yes, there have been a few examples where smart entertainers (Radiohead, Louis C.K.) have scrapped the backing of a major media company and offered up their stuff for a cheaper price on their own dime. But those are special circumstances. 95% of copyright holders can't do that.

 

How many copies of The Dark Knight have been sold even though high-quality Blu-Ray rips were available to torrent?

I agree. However, you could keep rolling this back all the way to free so I'm not that certain it is relevant.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $20 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $5 or $10. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $10 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $3 or $5. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $5 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $1 or $2. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want to pay $1 for an album but would gladly pay, say, $.5 or $.25. The same for new movies.

 

It's very possible that you have this backwards--that people do not want a pirate download for an album but would gladly download a free copy from the official source. The same for new movies.

 

That's actually a continuation of the same economic principle which is basic supply and demand. Where the RIAA's claims fall apart is the assumption that everyone who downloads an album with a retail price of $20 would otherwise have paid $20. In reality, many of those downloaders do not represent any real demand at that $20 price level and thus the RIAA hasn't truly lost any revenue since the "theft" was a digital copy.

 

Again, I don't have issue with the existence of copyrights and the desire of copyright holders to protect them. I do have serious issues with current copyright law (mainly length of time) and the penalties associated with violating them (thousands of dollars in fines for downloading a movie). I have zero sympathy for the RIAA and the MPAA given their history on this issue and their insistence on putting out increasingly terrible products. And I have an even bigger problem with an industry trade association getting the basic functioning of the internet re-worked so that they can turn the DoJ into their own enforcement agency at zero cost to themselves.

 

I do not see convincing evidence that the current situation is something that should or can be fixed.

 

eta pretty cool article on the subject

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/view...ext=fac_artchop

Edited January 20, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

Those clips of the congressmen just reminded how f***ed up it is that we have people creating laws where they have absolutely no idea what they are legislating for/against.

 

^^^

Are we really naive enough to think that if I'm watching Lost or The Dark Knight off a torrent (in 1080p, 5.1 quality...not some s***ty grainy version) that I'm going to then go waste 25 bucks on the blu-ray copy? Or after I finish a book on my e-reader i'm going to get the hard copy?

I do this all the time. I've bought so many books from authors I would never had purchased a book from had I not downloaded their book for free to see if I like their stuff.

I'll add too that I think the MPAA and similar organizations are looking to the future here. At some point people are going to stop going to movie theaters. Yes, there will still be a few here and there, but like movie rental stores, they'll basically all die in favor of online streaming/downloads. Same with music (digital will take over CD sales this year) and books (same trend). They know the majority of their future potential is going to be digital distribution. So again, if i've already got a nice clean digital copy of a pirated show or movie, why would I then purchase another digital copy of the same thing?

 

Im with this, all of it. Its the reason why i havent paid a cent for any software or music. Why would i buy a hard copy when i can transfer my pirated copies easily into my ipod. Or pirate windows using a daz loader and buying a hard copy, i must not have a heart of gold like most people.

How many copies of The Dark Knight have been sold even though high-quality Blu-Ray rips were available to torrent?

 

How many didnt? You're basically arguing that Hollywood makes plenty of money so it's ok.

How can they make profits and allow piracy? I have yet to figure out a business model that allows for a company to make money while allowing someone to pirate their work.

Stealing is a fact of business life. Merchandise "disappears", employees show up driving cars they maybe shouldn't afford... its all part of the process. I guarantee if you just pulled your car over on intersection of Western/Armitage and watched the delivery shipments come in all day you count up $1000's of dollars of stuff disappearing from the trucks.

Those clips of the congressmen just reminded how f***ed up it is that we have people creating laws where they have absolutely no idea what they are legislating for/against.

 

Before Napster I was the owner of over 150 cds that I bought starting in 1992 when I started buying cds. I have bought maybe 3 cds in the past 2 years. I am including what I bought digitally on iTunes, so I don't mean physical cds, I am just talkng about music that I paid for. Its not that I am illegally downloading songs, I just used things like You Tube, Spotify, Pandora, etc to hear songs I want to hear.

Before Napster I was the owner of over 150 cds that I bought starting in 1992 when I started buying cds. I have bought maybe 3 cds in the past 2 years. I am including what I bought digitally on iTunes, so I don't mean physical cds, I am just talkng about music that I paid for. Its not that I am illegally downloading songs, I just used things like You Tube, Spotify, Pandora, etc to hear songs I want to hear.

How many of those have you seen or heard ads during?

Im with this, all of it. Its the reason why i havent paid a cent for any software or music. Why would i buy a hard copy when i can transfer my pirated copies easily into my ipod. Or pirate windows using a daz loader and buying a hard copy, i must not have a heart of gold like most people.

But at the same time how many downloads has the iTunes store sold to date?

 

There is a fair percentage of people that don't want to deal with downloading pirated copies of anything because they find it's more of a pain in the ass than just buying it and knowing you're getting a certain quality and safe product. They don't want to steal anything, but they do want a more convenient way to buy their music or movies.

 

People have all kinds of different reasons for buying things as opposed to taking similar content for free, but the bottom line is there will always be a fair percentage that are willing to pay for something they appreciate, and in my mind, those people can still support these industries if they just try and work with the technology, instead of fighting against it, as SS posted.

The same people who never would have considered walking into a store and shoplifting a CD will easily accept or download a pirated copy. It is virtually anonymous. Yes, there are thefts in every business, would you expect a store to just roll over and say, here take what you want? Why do we treat a digital download different than say a car? Imagine if a car thief said he would have bought that Mercedes G series but Mercedes was trying to make too much profit so he stole it instead?

 

The business model may be flawed based on today's technology, but simply allowing people to steal your product isn't the answer.

The same people who never would have considered walking into a store and shoplifting a CD will easily accept or download a pirated copy. It is virtually anonymous. Yes, there are thefts in every business, would you expect a store to just roll over and say, here take what you want? Why do we treat a digital download different than say a car? Imagine if a car thief said he would have bought that Mercedes G series but Mercedes was trying to make too much profit so he stole it instead?

 

The business model may be flawed based on today's technology, but simply allowing people to steal your product isn't the answer.

This is besides the point.

The same people who never would have considered walking into a store and shoplifting a CD will easily accept or download a pirated copy. It is virtually anonymous. Yes, there are thefts in every business, would you expect a store to just roll over and say, here take what you want? Why do we treat a digital download different than say a car? Imagine if a car thief said he would have bought that Mercedes G series but Mercedes was trying to make too much profit so he stole it instead?

 

The business model may be flawed based on today's technology, but simply allowing people to steal your product isn't the answer.

Comparing online piracy to stealing a car is ridiculous.

http://funpics.classicfun.ws/var/albums/Fu...pg?m=1270642049

 

Click that.

 

The same people who never would have considered walking into a store and shoplifting a CD will easily accept or download a pirated copy. It is virtually anonymous. Yes, there are thefts in every business, would you expect a store to just roll over and say, here take what you want? Why do we treat a digital download different than say a car? Imagine if a car thief said he would have bought that Mercedes G series but Mercedes was trying to make too much profit so he stole it instead?

 

The business model may be flawed based on today's technology, but simply allowing people to steal your product isn't the answer.

 

but in my case i wouldn't be stealing the mercedes G series, id be receiving a copy of a mercedes G series and leaving the original to its rightful owner.

How many didnt? You're basically arguing that Hollywood makes plenty of money so it's ok.

About 20% of total dl's. I'm arguing that their lost revenues aren't worth the measures they would enact.

The same people who never would have considered walking into a store and shoplifting a CD will easily accept or download a pirated copy. It is virtually anonymous. Yes, there are thefts in every business, would you expect a store to just roll over and say, here take what you want? Why do we treat a digital download different than say a car? Imagine if a car thief said he would have bought that Mercedes G series but Mercedes was trying to make too much profit so he stole it instead?

 

The business model may be flawed based on today's technology, but simply allowing people to steal your product isn't the answer.

Digital copies don't actually cost someone money directly. Stolen physical product does.

 

Breaking the internet and draconian copyright laws aren't the solution to outdated business models.

Digital copies don't actually cost someone money directly. Stolen physical product does.

 

Breaking the internet and draconian copyright laws aren't the solution to outdated business models.

 

When the free item is readily available, why buy an original? Of course it costs them money. It may not be 100% of all the downloads, but it certainly costs them some. At least some of the people would have purchased the music.

 

How will a new business model work where only one person has to pay for the product? Why should anyone buy an original? It is easy to say it is an outdated business model, but allowing your product or service to be stolen isn't outdated.