- Status
drwho1
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2010
- 367
- 0
- 18,930
sorry but I will never fall for this.
I personally backup all my DVD's mainly because (1) DVD's get damage, sometimes for no reason, they just stop working (2) I don't have to physically switch disks.
But I still prefer to have my original disks rather than a downloaded version.
I personally backup all my DVD's mainly because (1) DVD's get damage, sometimes for no reason, they just stop working (2) I don't have to physically switch disks.
But I still prefer to have my original disks rather than a downloaded version.
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]I love the way illegal downloaders jump from "it stimulates sales" to "it's not stealing" (which it most certainly is by the license). I'm not so much concerned about the practice, just the whining, anger, and misdirected blaming that I hear when someone is caught and punished for doing something that is clearly known to be illegal. It's an imperfect system serving imperfect people. When Napster really got going, more than 80% of music sales disappeared. Now, DRM controlled music sales are the majority, and the industry is thriving.How does anyone not laugh reading comments above when someone says they will not pay for a DRM'ed movie, but instead of having the spine to boycott it, illegally download and view it. Is that supposed to show some kind of commendable spirit? What do they do in the case where the price of M&M's goes above some self-defined threshold? Steal them and cry foul on the shoplifting charges because the price was too high for them?[/citation]
It has nothing to do with stealing.
My concern with downloaded media is this...
I downloaded a paid movie on to my media device. Next day the media device I downloaded said move failed. Now what? Can I re download the movie again? What if I want to take the movie say to a friends place and watch it there? Will the download only work on my media device player? Does the download have a shelf life?
There is an advantage of portable media. I can watch, listen and use it anywhere.
.
It has nothing to do with stealing.
My concern with downloaded media is this...
I downloaded a paid movie on to my media device. Next day the media device I downloaded said move failed. Now what? Can I re download the movie again? What if I want to take the movie say to a friends place and watch it there? Will the download only work on my media device player? Does the download have a shelf life?
There is an advantage of portable media. I can watch, listen and use it anywhere.
.
[citation][nom]Kyuuketsuki[/nom]No, it's not. There is a clear and obvious difference...[/citation]
Same tired old dodges. Blah, blah, blah.
The thing stolen is the royalty that was due, just like the payment on the candy. Your argument is still a distortion used as a dodge. Intentionally failing to see the point does not protect you from being wrong.
Same goes for the "no evidence" argument. Evidence that satisfies someone who refuses to admit any evidence obviously doesn't exist. So you have to guess: Is the view of the self-serving copyright violator likely to be the correct one, or the industry that is trying to make money the correct one. If pirating make the entertainment industry more money, you can be sure they would be encouraging it (or do you assume that your intelligence is greater than the collective intelligence of an entire industry?)
Reasonable discourse can only take place if the participants are reasonable.
Same tired old dodges. Blah, blah, blah.
The thing stolen is the royalty that was due, just like the payment on the candy. Your argument is still a distortion used as a dodge. Intentionally failing to see the point does not protect you from being wrong.
Same goes for the "no evidence" argument. Evidence that satisfies someone who refuses to admit any evidence obviously doesn't exist. So you have to guess: Is the view of the self-serving copyright violator likely to be the correct one, or the industry that is trying to make money the correct one. If pirating make the entertainment industry more money, you can be sure they would be encouraging it (or do you assume that your intelligence is greater than the collective intelligence of an entire industry?)
Reasonable discourse can only take place if the participants are reasonable.
zachusaman
Distinguished
- Dec 5, 2011
- 38
- 0
- 18,580
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
OK, I think the whole DRM arguement is overshadowing the technical breakthrough that this could cause, that physical media for movies may not end at Bluray optical disks
...
I have been saying for years that the next physical medium should be a move to SD cards, OK maybe not downloaded onto your own and just sold pre-loaded, but this way works too. Instead of a 12cm optical disk you can now have a bit of plastic the size of a postage stamp
...
There are lots of advantages to this from power saving, reduction in packaging, shipping, this in turn reduces CO2 emissions
...
Future Bluray players could have an SD slot so you have backwards compatability for your old disk collection and forwards compatability when higher res films like 4K arrive, you can use the cards in your laptop, tablet or smartphone (if it has an SD slot, or they use microSD)
...
This realy could be the future of physical media, but the price of such convenience will always be the studios, there is no way they will allow a physical media to have their content on unless the tech can be shown to have lip service being paid to some kind of copy protection - OK sure the people in the know will crack it in 5 seconds flat and still watch pirated stuff but the majority of people out there won't do that as any kind of protection will be too much of a hassle to worry about and they will just buy it (just like iTunes).
...
I have been saying for years that the next physical medium should be a move to SD cards, OK maybe not downloaded onto your own and just sold pre-loaded, but this way works too. Instead of a 12cm optical disk you can now have a bit of plastic the size of a postage stamp
...
There are lots of advantages to this from power saving, reduction in packaging, shipping, this in turn reduces CO2 emissions
...
Future Bluray players could have an SD slot so you have backwards compatability for your old disk collection and forwards compatability when higher res films like 4K arrive, you can use the cards in your laptop, tablet or smartphone (if it has an SD slot, or they use microSD)
...
This realy could be the future of physical media, but the price of such convenience will always be the studios, there is no way they will allow a physical media to have their content on unless the tech can be shown to have lip service being paid to some kind of copy protection - OK sure the people in the know will crack it in 5 seconds flat and still watch pirated stuff but the majority of people out there won't do that as any kind of protection will be too much of a hassle to worry about and they will just buy it (just like iTunes).
zak_mckraken
Distinguished
- Jan 16, 2004
- 868
- 0
- 18,930
@back_by_demand : I had the same thought a couple years ago when SD cards reached the size of a DVD. My only concern was losing such a small card, but with this system, you could just download the movie via UltraViolet and put it on another SCSA-enbabled SD card. So, yeah, good move. Will it catch? That's another story...
dalethepcman
Distinguished
- Jul 1, 2010
- 541
- 0
- 18,940
Once again every thread that has to do with copyright or DRM is hijacked by Lamorpa's trolling. We know you work for the MPAA, go somewhere else.
All of this DRM is big music/media fighting against the FAIR USE ACT's section 2 modifications to the DMCA that allows people to bypass any/all security measures for "libraries and archives, to skip objectionable content, to transmit over a personal network, and for preservation"
The media industry knows you will re-buy the same CD if the old one gets scratched. This an attempt to increase their profits by reselling you the same shit again and again. If you are allowed to easily make a backup for yourself, then why would you buy the re-release of star wars in 3d, blu ray, with extended scene's, and remastered audio, with updated special effects. VHS, Laserdisc, DVD's. Blu-Ray's are all susceptible to damage, theft, fire, etc.. A digital copy is forever.
All of this DRM is big music/media fighting against the FAIR USE ACT's section 2 modifications to the DMCA that allows people to bypass any/all security measures for "libraries and archives, to skip objectionable content, to transmit over a personal network, and for preservation"
The media industry knows you will re-buy the same CD if the old one gets scratched. This an attempt to increase their profits by reselling you the same shit again and again. If you are allowed to easily make a backup for yourself, then why would you buy the re-release of star wars in 3d, blu ray, with extended scene's, and remastered audio, with updated special effects. VHS, Laserdisc, DVD's. Blu-Ray's are all susceptible to damage, theft, fire, etc.. A digital copy is forever.
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Once again every thread that has to do with copyright or DRM is hijacked by Lamorpa's trolling. We know you work for the MPAA, go somewhere else...[/citation]
I am sorry you get so bothered hearing things you do not want to hear. I, of course, do not work for the MPAA. Your 'knowing' is only real in a world where paranoia and/or anger can change reality. I have never stated whether I believe it is valid or ethical to copy copyrighted material. I merely hold that to approach the issue in reality, you need to understand that it currently is illegal, because it is. It helps no one to make believe it is not illegal because "it's crap", or "I don't like DRM", or any of the other irrelevant arguments. As with all things, the owner get to decide price, conditions, etc. If you don't like it you can not buy it, or steal it and be subject to the penalties if caught. It's merely reality.
I am sorry you get so bothered hearing things you do not want to hear. I, of course, do not work for the MPAA. Your 'knowing' is only real in a world where paranoia and/or anger can change reality. I have never stated whether I believe it is valid or ethical to copy copyrighted material. I merely hold that to approach the issue in reality, you need to understand that it currently is illegal, because it is. It helps no one to make believe it is not illegal because "it's crap", or "I don't like DRM", or any of the other irrelevant arguments. As with all things, the owner get to decide price, conditions, etc. If you don't like it you can not buy it, or steal it and be subject to the penalties if caught. It's merely reality.
danwat1234 stated, "That's why I download my movies off bittorrent at near bluray quality, and if I like it, I'll buy it but I'll throw it away when it comes in the mail. No DRM for me"
This is obviously stealing. Even if it was legal to view and then buy, it certainly will never be legal to view, decide if you like it, and then optionally pay. That's not the way a media license has ever worked. You couldn't buy an album, cut it open, play it, decide you didn't like it and then return it. And even if this was allowed, what about the movie that was good enough to view once, but not good enough to view again? How often would someone still buy it? The (villainized) MPAA and RIAA seem to be trying to get some kind of control over unlimited, unlicensed distribution. They really do not have a choice, because uncontrolled, it will ruin them. There is no other commercial business that relies on the charitable choices of users. It doesn't end up working in the real world. It does work on a small scale with software, but most times is a subsistence revenue stream, not a professional one.
The reality is, people villainize the MPAA and RIAA because they are inconvenient for them. A pretty self-serving and weak argument.
This is obviously stealing. Even if it was legal to view and then buy, it certainly will never be legal to view, decide if you like it, and then optionally pay. That's not the way a media license has ever worked. You couldn't buy an album, cut it open, play it, decide you didn't like it and then return it. And even if this was allowed, what about the movie that was good enough to view once, but not good enough to view again? How often would someone still buy it? The (villainized) MPAA and RIAA seem to be trying to get some kind of control over unlimited, unlicensed distribution. They really do not have a choice, because uncontrolled, it will ruin them. There is no other commercial business that relies on the charitable choices of users. It doesn't end up working in the real world. It does work on a small scale with software, but most times is a subsistence revenue stream, not a professional one.
The reality is, people villainize the MPAA and RIAA because they are inconvenient for them. A pretty self-serving and weak argument.
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]danwat1234 stated, "That's why I download my movies off bittorrent at near bluray quality, and if I like it, I'll buy it but I'll throw it away when it comes in the mail. No DRM for me"This is obviously stealing. Even if it was legal to view and then buy, it certainly will never be legal to view, decide if you like it, and then optionally pay. That's not the way a media license has ever worked. You couldn't buy an album, cut it open, play it, decide you didn't like it and then return it. And even if this was allowed, what about the movie that was good enough to view once, but not good enough to view again? How often would someone still buy it? The (villainized) MPAA and RIAA seem to be trying to get some kind of control over unlimited, unlicensed distribution. They really do not have a choice, because uncontrolled, it will ruin them. There is no other commercial business that relies on the charitable choices of users. It doesn't end up working in the real world. It does work on a small scale with software, but most times is a subsistence revenue stream, not a professional one.The reality is, people villainize the MPAA and RIAA because they are inconvenient for them. A pretty self-serving and weak argument.[/citation]
people villanize the mpaa and riaa because everything they do makes it so easy. if piracy held the same penalty as lets say shoplifting, adjusted for the fact nothing physical was stolen, i dont think people would have a problem with the riaa and mpaa getting theirs, its when they use antaquated laws as a scare tactic (150000$ and 5 years in prison per offense, a measure made because of bootlegging, and profiting off selling counterfeit media on an organised level) and when they do have a case, using the law as a means of extortion (you can go to court and possibly win and not pay anything but a layer fee, but you may also have to pay in full the 100+k or we can settle out of court for your entire life savings, collage fund, ect... or better when porn did the same thing but at lower costs as a hush money kind of tactic, because its embarrassing)
lets put it this way, current laws would actualy see me getting off with less if i went to a store, stole the disc, shot the clerk (fatal or non fatal doesn't matter) and went after the register.
someone recently got a 600+k fine for 16 mp3s, tell me that murder gets you off with less is an understantment, as in someones whole life, they are pretty lucky if they ever amass 600k$ even in liquidate all their assets way, here... my dad works 40+ hours a week and can pull close to 100k a year, a very big chunk is taken in tax, and another large chunk is taken monthly in bills to the effect of close to 1000 a week (give or take depending on needs) and currently if liquidated a fairly successful persons assets in their mid 50's, it would most likely come to 100k in the green, but could easily be a debt also.
the way i see it, to a normal person any fine over 100k is close to (if not worse than) a life sentence.
real world stealing has an aproperate punishment,
digital stealing is so effed its not even funny
people villanize the mpaa and riaa because everything they do makes it so easy. if piracy held the same penalty as lets say shoplifting, adjusted for the fact nothing physical was stolen, i dont think people would have a problem with the riaa and mpaa getting theirs, its when they use antaquated laws as a scare tactic (150000$ and 5 years in prison per offense, a measure made because of bootlegging, and profiting off selling counterfeit media on an organised level) and when they do have a case, using the law as a means of extortion (you can go to court and possibly win and not pay anything but a layer fee, but you may also have to pay in full the 100+k or we can settle out of court for your entire life savings, collage fund, ect... or better when porn did the same thing but at lower costs as a hush money kind of tactic, because its embarrassing)
lets put it this way, current laws would actualy see me getting off with less if i went to a store, stole the disc, shot the clerk (fatal or non fatal doesn't matter) and went after the register.
someone recently got a 600+k fine for 16 mp3s, tell me that murder gets you off with less is an understantment, as in someones whole life, they are pretty lucky if they ever amass 600k$ even in liquidate all their assets way, here... my dad works 40+ hours a week and can pull close to 100k a year, a very big chunk is taken in tax, and another large chunk is taken monthly in bills to the effect of close to 1000 a week (give or take depending on needs) and currently if liquidated a fairly successful persons assets in their mid 50's, it would most likely come to 100k in the green, but could easily be a debt also.
the way i see it, to a normal person any fine over 100k is close to (if not worse than) a life sentence.
real world stealing has an aproperate punishment,
digital stealing is so effed its not even funny
ik242
Distinguished
- Mar 25, 2009
- 45
- 0
- 18,580
it is interesting how technology that actually allowed them to get rich as Pharaohs, can be used to avoid paying. nobody says they have to stop producing entertainment. entertainment (music, theatre, etc.) existed long before technology allowed broadcast and recording. if they can't make living from sales of records, they should try other options, perhaps live performances (which is how artists used to make money for centuries). they will have to travel and perform more often but at least they will stop loosing money to pirates. when i don't have job, i find another, i changed fields more than once. can't sell music? get another job like rest of us...
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]lets put it this way, current laws would actualy see me getting off with less if i went to a store, stole the disc, shot the clerk (fatal or non fatal doesn't matter) and went after the register.[/citation]
Why not exaggerate a even more while your making up nonsense. This is supposed to be the place for comments, not obvious self-serving fairy tales.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]someone recently got a 600+k fine for 16 mp3s...[/citation]
No. In this case the fine was for the hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads this person made possible. The per item fine is actually small. (but I know it sounds 'better' if you state it in a way that it did not actually happen)
Why not exaggerate a even more while your making up nonsense. This is supposed to be the place for comments, not obvious self-serving fairy tales.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]someone recently got a 600+k fine for 16 mp3s...[/citation]
No. In this case the fine was for the hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads this person made possible. The per item fine is actually small. (but I know it sounds 'better' if you state it in a way that it did not actually happen)
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Just not getting it, are you?Treat everyone as a thief, and they will be a thief even when they are not.[/citation]
Who is treating everyone as a thief? Which places do you shop that just have a cup at the door and hope that you drop enough money in it on your way out? I see so many arguments put forth here, almost all of which are merely self serving. It's not as though there is not a precedent for what happens when copyrights are not enforced (Napster 2001?). Do you think content providers go to the trouble of adding DRM because they simply like to annoy their customers? Maybe people project their own selfish self serving hatred onto the content providers and think the same thing is being done to them for spite (not much of a business model).
The only thing I am "not getting" is most people's self serving excuses for stealing. It is very rare to see a comment where someone states that they buy the media and then use an illegal download to get the content in the form and on the device of their choice. Almost everyone here illegally downloads and believes it is OK because they feel their hate for the provider somehow changes the conditions of taking something that does not belong to them. And it's not even that their attempt at vigilante 'justice' for the providers is something that could be admirable; They would be the first to scream about unfair punishments if they were caught.
Who is treating everyone as a thief? Which places do you shop that just have a cup at the door and hope that you drop enough money in it on your way out? I see so many arguments put forth here, almost all of which are merely self serving. It's not as though there is not a precedent for what happens when copyrights are not enforced (Napster 2001?). Do you think content providers go to the trouble of adding DRM because they simply like to annoy their customers? Maybe people project their own selfish self serving hatred onto the content providers and think the same thing is being done to them for spite (not much of a business model).
The only thing I am "not getting" is most people's self serving excuses for stealing. It is very rare to see a comment where someone states that they buy the media and then use an illegal download to get the content in the form and on the device of their choice. Almost everyone here illegally downloads and believes it is OK because they feel their hate for the provider somehow changes the conditions of taking something that does not belong to them. And it's not even that their attempt at vigilante 'justice' for the providers is something that could be admirable; They would be the first to scream about unfair punishments if they were caught.
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Who is treating everyone as a thief? Which places do you shop that just have a cup at the door and hope that you drop enough money in it on your way out? I see so many arguments put forth here, almost all of which are merely self serving. It's not as though there is not a precedent for what happens when copyrights are not enforced (Napster 2001?). Do you think content providers go to the trouble of adding DRM because they simply like to annoy their customers? Maybe people project their own selfish self serving hatred onto the content providers and think the same thing is being done to them for spite (not much of a business model).The only thing I am "not getting" is most people's self serving excuses for stealing. It is very rare to see a comment where someone states that they buy the media and then use an illegal download to get the content in the form and on the device of their choice. Almost everyone here illegally downloads and believes it is OK because they feel their hate for the provider somehow changes the conditions of taking something that does not belong to them. And it's not even that their attempt at vigilante 'justice' for the providers is something that could be admirable; They would be the first to scream about unfair punishments if they were caught.[/citation]
Yes - just like it is OK for all software licensing agreements to basically say "if our material turns out to be defective in any manner we may or may not fix it, and you have no legal recourse since you agreed to this licensing agreement." In my opinion, that amounts to legalized stealing.
I'm sure that if you pay attention to the user agreement of many software products that you will find this in the agreement. I've seen it in many myself.
There are people who illegally download first to be sure that they will like the material. If they do, then they pay for the material. If they don't then they delete it. Its that simple.
So, what this suggests is that perhaps the media industry should give a try before you buy policy.
Instead, in implementing DRM, the media industry simply treats everyone as if they are thieves. It solves nothing.
At least some of the people who tolerate the DRM will crack it, and then it becomes useless again. Then the industry sees the problem as someone cracking the DRM, so they implement stronger DRM, and someone cracks that, then the industry implements stronger DRM, and someone cracks that and on and on and nothing gets resolved. Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again whilst expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Nothing gets solved. Since the industry is the driver of the cycle, then perhaps it is time for the industry to try something different. Treating people who legitimately acquire media like thieves is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do.
Yes - just like it is OK for all software licensing agreements to basically say "if our material turns out to be defective in any manner we may or may not fix it, and you have no legal recourse since you agreed to this licensing agreement." In my opinion, that amounts to legalized stealing.
I'm sure that if you pay attention to the user agreement of many software products that you will find this in the agreement. I've seen it in many myself.
There are people who illegally download first to be sure that they will like the material. If they do, then they pay for the material. If they don't then they delete it. Its that simple.
So, what this suggests is that perhaps the media industry should give a try before you buy policy.
Instead, in implementing DRM, the media industry simply treats everyone as if they are thieves. It solves nothing.
At least some of the people who tolerate the DRM will crack it, and then it becomes useless again. Then the industry sees the problem as someone cracking the DRM, so they implement stronger DRM, and someone cracks that, then the industry implements stronger DRM, and someone cracks that and on and on and nothing gets resolved. Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again whilst expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Nothing gets solved. Since the industry is the driver of the cycle, then perhaps it is time for the industry to try something different. Treating people who legitimately acquire media like thieves is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]There are people who illegally download first to be sure that they will like the material. If they do, then they pay for the material. If they don't then they delete it. Its that simple.[/citation]
Yes. Simple stealing. The nature of the material, particularly movies, is a single viewing. So, in reality, you are asking the content providers to run their business as a charity, hoping they can provide the same quality material while ringing their little bell and holding out a bucket. Why has no one ever set up a place where people could contribute the market price for the content they have illegally downloaded and it could even go for a legal defense fund for copyright violators? Answer: Almost no one would contribute, because they simply want to take the content for free and walk away.
In any case, you never pointed out the existing retail stores that allow you to shop and just put a cup near the door for voluntary contributions. Why should content providers be any different just because people really, really want it?
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]So, what this suggests is that perhaps the media industry should give a try before you buy policy.[/citation]
They do. Previews are more widely available than ever.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Instead, in implementing DRM, the media industry simply treats everyone as if they are thieves. It solves nothing.[/citation]
It's more complex than that. For the vast majority of people it is not a problem. That is why sales are relatively strong.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]At least some of the people who tolerate the DRM will crack it, and then it becomes useless again. Then the industry sees the problem as someone cracking the DRM, so they implement stronger DRM, and someone cracks that, then the industry implements stronger DRM, and someone cracks that and on and on and nothing gets resolved. Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again whilst expecting different results is the definition of insanity.[/citation]
It is comical to see this argument applied to the DRM creators, but ignored for the crackers. If the sentences said were constructed around asking why the crackers bother, since, if they crack one DRM, another, stronger one will just get implemented, it would be just as valid.
Yes. Simple stealing. The nature of the material, particularly movies, is a single viewing. So, in reality, you are asking the content providers to run their business as a charity, hoping they can provide the same quality material while ringing their little bell and holding out a bucket. Why has no one ever set up a place where people could contribute the market price for the content they have illegally downloaded and it could even go for a legal defense fund for copyright violators? Answer: Almost no one would contribute, because they simply want to take the content for free and walk away.
In any case, you never pointed out the existing retail stores that allow you to shop and just put a cup near the door for voluntary contributions. Why should content providers be any different just because people really, really want it?
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]So, what this suggests is that perhaps the media industry should give a try before you buy policy.[/citation]
They do. Previews are more widely available than ever.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Instead, in implementing DRM, the media industry simply treats everyone as if they are thieves. It solves nothing.[/citation]
It's more complex than that. For the vast majority of people it is not a problem. That is why sales are relatively strong.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]At least some of the people who tolerate the DRM will crack it, and then it becomes useless again. Then the industry sees the problem as someone cracking the DRM, so they implement stronger DRM, and someone cracks that, then the industry implements stronger DRM, and someone cracks that and on and on and nothing gets resolved. Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again whilst expecting different results is the definition of insanity.[/citation]
It is comical to see this argument applied to the DRM creators, but ignored for the crackers. If the sentences said were constructed around asking why the crackers bother, since, if they crack one DRM, another, stronger one will just get implemented, it would be just as valid.
wiyosaya
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 396
- 0
- 18,930
I can see that you and I are not going to agree on this. In my opinion, it is obvious that in some way, you are an industry shill who has blinders on. However:
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Yes. Simple stealing. The nature of the material, particularly movies, is a single viewing. So, in reality, you are asking the content providers to run their business as a charity, hoping they can provide the same quality material while ringing their little bell and holding out a bucket.[/citation]
In reality, there are artists out there who have tried this model, and found it to work.
Yet the industry ignores it, places a pad lock on every item they sell that restricts "Fair Use" that has been guaranteed in the US by the Supreme Court, and then the industry wonders why people bring a pair of bolt cutters, and calls the Supreme Court "Activist Judges."
I'm suggesting the industry try something different to attract clientele; however, it seems that the industry has no concept of what it is to do something different.
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Yes. Simple stealing. The nature of the material, particularly movies, is a single viewing. So, in reality, you are asking the content providers to run their business as a charity, hoping they can provide the same quality material while ringing their little bell and holding out a bucket.[/citation]
In reality, there are artists out there who have tried this model, and found it to work.
Yet the industry ignores it, places a pad lock on every item they sell that restricts "Fair Use" that has been guaranteed in the US by the Supreme Court, and then the industry wonders why people bring a pair of bolt cutters, and calls the Supreme Court "Activist Judges."
I'm suggesting the industry try something different to attract clientele; however, it seems that the industry has no concept of what it is to do something different.
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]I'm suggesting the industry try something different to attract clientele; however, it seems that the industry has no concept of what it is to do something different.[/citation]
Could be. I'll bet this is going to be a revolutionary thing, not evolutionary. But I don't think it's even close to the tipping point yet. I wouldn't expect an industry to work to put itself out of business (I think this is the only business of content providers who are not creators), so they will probably just squeeze out what they can while they can.
Could be. I'll bet this is going to be a revolutionary thing, not evolutionary. But I don't think it's even close to the tipping point yet. I wouldn't expect an industry to work to put itself out of business (I think this is the only business of content providers who are not creators), so they will probably just squeeze out what they can while they can.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Solved
Facebook
Twitter