Originally Posted by Dean Roddey
This is just silliness. There is absolutely nothing 'old' about the concept that if you take what someone else has worked to create, without compensating them or getting permission, that you are doing wrong. It's fundamental to our entire society. It's only now that people can steal intellectual property that they want to somehow convince themselves that this isn't true, but only when it's them whom gain, they won't ever apply that grand new vision to themselves. None of them are going to their bosses and asking to work for free so that others can benefit from their work.
You're right, that was silliness. It isn't "only now" that these stick-in-the-mud attitudes have surfaced to combat cultural and technological advancements. The same greedy, delusional industry execs spouted the same baseless, reactionary nonsense when two-head VCRs came out, for example. CD burners too. And again, it has been shown that a pirated view of a movie or listen of a track\\album does NOT equate to a lost sale. It is not "taking" anything from anyone, and in fact does not cost the economy anything
. It is fundamentally no different than borrowing a movie from a friend, which is technically also illegal under the same ridiculous laws and antiquated mindsets. Here is a deeper look.
A completely meaningless statement straight out of the downloader's handbook. It sounds like it means something but it doesn't.
It means plenty, you're just too engrossed in your passionate disdain to bother considering it. When a film makes $500 million and is still technically considered a "loss" by the studio, that system and its practices are broken. When I cannot even make a copy of my own purchased media to give to a friend, that system and its practices are broken. When I can't legally include a music track in my wedding video without paying exorbitant licensing fees, that system and its practices are broken. When I can't make a digital copy of my content without having to deal with absurd DRM, that system and its practices are broken. There are a hundred similar examples, but they all mean the same thing. This isn't a new era of computers anymore... hell, this isn't even a new era of digital media anymore. There is simply no excuse for the studios to still think they can still royally screw their own customers (and artists, for that matter) and it will be taken lying down simply because there is no other alternative or recourse. In fact, there is actually evidence that the music industry's documented losses are actually directly related to their slow adoption of the digital format and delivery
. There are now plenty of alternatives, and both the customers AND the artists are willingly taking advantage of them.
Ultraviolet is a great step in that direction, but it may prove to be too little too late if it is too restrictive.
This is another standard downloader's rationalization. Look, when 10% of people steal, then you can argue that a download doesn't equate to a loss of sale. It's easy to understand that there are probably 10% of people who are hard core and won't buy something. But we are way, way beyond that. We are now into a situatoin where large numbers of downloads ARE absolutely lost sales, period. People aren't buying because it's trivial and consequence free to do otherwise. Else, they would be purchasing, because they do want to have it.
Speaking of crap "straight out of a handbook", that is easily refutable nonsense straight from the RIAA and MPAA themselves. and it has been ruled so in court
. It has even been admitted by companies themselves
Not true. The music industry has imploded. Sales is far lower than it was in 1999 when downloading hit the public consciousness. The amount of music stolen is vast. And of course movie box office has NOTHING to do with direct sales. Wether it is up or down in no way justifies allowing wide spread theft of the saleable product.
It hasn't imploded, CD sales actually rose a few years ago, but have steadily declined as digital retail sales have dramatically increased (for your sake, we won't even get into the data on iTunes and Amazon sales). It's mainly net revenue to the studios that has suffered. Meanwhile artists are continually finding new ways to increase their profits, and have done so with mostly success. Also, as an aside, there is evidence that the larger availability of music through online sharing has helped drive an increase in music instrument sales
, as well as things like portable media devices.Here is a great analysis that you should take the time to read.
Meanwhile, in movies, while DVD sales are down overall (although less than last year), Blu-ray sales are up
. Not to mention the obvious which is that streaming and VOD sales are way, way up. Again, this is evidence of the consumers and artists adapting and evolving while the old bull-headed studios are busy trying to figure out ways to drag us back into the stone age where they made obscene profits and screwed over everyone involved. I mean, they just lobbied with nearly $100 million to get Congress to support SOPA\\PIPA... that should tell you where their priorities lie. Not in innovation, or serving the obvious interests and requests of their customers, but in suing people for phantom lost sales with fudged numbers for ludicrous restitution. They don't even care if you're dead.
Nor do they care about other things like facts or physical possibilities.And, of course, never mind that the entertainment industry enjoyed an over 40% growth from 1998-2008, and is expected to steadily grow over the next decade as well.
Or that they RIAA and MPAA are suppressing reports that show piracy is actually helping the industry.
Not at all, it is widely documented how outrageous their restitution amounts are. If you'd do some research instead of resigning yourself to be a RIAA\\MPAA choir member, perhaps you'd already know that. But you can start here
, at least.
And, BTW, the *lawsuits* against individual downloaders has not been on the taxpayer's dime. The industries involved are paying large amounts of money to undertake them, because they are civil lawsuits. The government only gets involved when there is criminal copyright infringement, so you should get your rationalizations straight.
Actually the civil lawsuits do costs the taxpayers money as we have to fund a judge and jury for these frivolous lawsuits. But either way, the only people benefiting from this are the lawyers