![Image](http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9404/screenshot20120109at123e.png)
A few undeniably good points made here too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Sorry, I can't read past that. Online piracy is theft from those who work for a living. If one can't see that, one shouldn't offer opines to the contrary.ScottL wrote:Online piracy is just the market determining a reasonable price.
You're fooling yourself if you don't believe what I wrote isn't true. Netflix, prime example, you simply can't argue with the statistics. Since online music, movie, and book distribution has upticked, online piracy has significantly dropped. Now it's just a red herring proliferated by these large conglomerates to get greater policing power over the future (the internet).GIThruster wrote:Sorry, I can't read past that. Online piracy is theft from those who work for a living. If one can't see that, one shouldn't offer opines to the contrary.ScottL wrote:Online piracy is just the market determining a reasonable price.
People who value patents over and against copyrights, don't understand what IP is all about.
Without protections for creative property, creative people will all go do something different.
Anyone here actually listen to contemporary music, watch movies or enjoy fine art?
You think its okay to steal from the creators of these things?
GIThruster wrote:Sorry, I can't read past that. Online piracy is theft from those who work for a living. If one can't see that, one shouldn't offer opines to the contrary.ScottL wrote:Online piracy is just the market determining a reasonable price.
People who value patents over and against copyrights, don't understand what IP is all about.
Without protections for creative property, creative people will all go do something different.
Anyone here actually listen to contemporary music, watch movies or enjoy fine art?
You think its okay to steal from the creators of these things?
You're making a specious argument, saying artists don't get profits from online sales, then referencing the state of affairs in that regard 12 years ago and then talking about CD and online sale in the last 5 years. Besides, it'a ll red herring--theft is theft is theft. How is it otherwise decent people can't remember this? Are you all thieves? You're supporting the notion of STEALING by saying you're only stealing from large corps.ScottL wrote:. . .you do realize that the artist gets 0% of online sales of their work right? In a few rare cases, the artists were smart enough to contract for a portion, but the majority before ~2000 had no such clause.Furthermore, in the last 5 years CD sales have been plummetting while online sales have been sky-rocketing.
GTIThruster, you talk of not qualifying as an adult in this conversation, why don't you take your fingers out of your ears and stop singing "I can't hear you" the whole time. What I have said is true. I have not condoned piracy, but have said it's an obvious result of consumer frustration with the product. I've been proven right by iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Crackle, Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, and the list goes on. If you make the media reasonable obtainable via price, quality, and distribution, you'll find piracy becomes small enough to be white noise.GIThruster wrote:You're making a specious argument, saying artists don't get profits from online sales, then referencing the state of affairs in that regard 12 years ago and then talking about CD and online sale in the last 5 years. Besides, it'a ll red herring--theft is theft is theft. How is it otherwise decent people can't remember this? Are you all thieves? You're supporting the notion of STEALING by saying you're only stealing from large corps.ScottL wrote:. . .you do realize that the artist gets 0% of online sales of their work right? In a few rare cases, the artists were smart enough to contract for a portion, but the majority before ~2000 had no such clause.Furthermore, in the last 5 years CD sales have been plummetting while online sales have been sky-rocketing.
IT STEALING!!!
Until you get that, you don't qualify for adult conversation of the subject.
Funny there was a dip this year in movie-going. It was blamed on piracy, yet if you look at the movie selection out this year, it has been absolutely lackluster, but of course it couldn't be because the movies sucked could it?! Why wouldn't someone want to see a quality gem like "Jack and Jill" ???? </sarcasm>5) Why Not Going To The Theaters Won’t Fix The Problem
Some people will say “Well then let’s not go to the movie theaters until we force them to change”. That will NEVER work, because as I’ve demonstrated above, when there are financial losses, the current industry system just takes back those loses from those who are buying the tickets. They’ll blame piracy for the dip in thater attendance and raise prices even more. It’s a systemic problem.
I think you may be slightly misinformed on the bill. Without a doubt, SOPA allows the DoJ to obtain a court order to shut down DNS of a domain, but it also allows any business to seek a court order to shut down the DNS of a domain (or subdomain of course).GIThruster wrote:Scott, you're misrepresenting the situation. I am not supporting SOPA for the reasons I have already explained, but just saying, this nonsense about how SOPA grants vast power to media organizations is poppycock. All the policing functions go through DoJ. There are no "unprecedented policing rights" being distributed to hateful big-business media corps whom we demonize with arguments of theater prices.
Theater prices are determined by the market--by what people are willing to pay. If they stop going to the theater, the prices will come down. Theaters are not made or broken by such prices. They don't get a piece of the ticket sales. All their income is generated by selling shit food at outrageous prices to the audience, so as long as the theaters are full, arguments the prices ought to be cheaper are just nonsense.
The DoJ is not the courts and the courts are not the DoJ. The rights are granted by the courts, the same courts which have granted the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits against elderly women for downloading movies and gangster rap.We also get this tidbit on Search Engines:(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
Payment sites and Advertisers must also cut ties to said sites within 5 days of the order. If a company claims that a site is infringing upon their copyright or IP, by U.S. law, the site must be blocked from access, removed from search engines, and be completely unknowable. There is no requirement that the alleged site be informed of said action. This is the most poorly worded piece of garbage next to the DMCA.(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.
So you don't have a problem with the movie distributors charging higher prices than the majority of the market cares to spend, and then blaming the lack of theater attendance on online piracy instead of high prices?GIThruster wrote:Likewise, you're obfuscating as regards the market setting the price for tickets. The owners of the IP have a right to charge whatever they can get for their product. Doesn't matter you don't like it. That's the way capitalism works.