<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+May 21 2005, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ May 21 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except it's not. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. It really wouldn't matter if everyone downloaded the music illegally and then bought it: they're still wrong.
Let's assume that 75% of all those who downloaded songs illegally bought a CD. This is an unlikely number. But still, let's pretend that the case for illegally downloading songs was that great. 25% of downloaded songs are not purchased. That's 25% lost sales. It doesn't matter that 75% of sales increased: 25% was still lost, and that's a valid and worthwhile 25%.
Downloading songs causes lost sales, because not everyone who downloaded the song bought it. They are not allowed the entertainment of the song without paying for it, or having someone else pay for the license (such as radio stations). The amount of people who eventually did the right thing and bought the music isn't a worthy argument, because 1. they did something illegal to get to the result, and 2. not every person who did the illegal deed bought the album (and as I said before, this wouldn't absolve them of fault or consequences for their actions). Applauding illegal acts because the majority eventually does what's right is flawed.
35% of the illegal downloaders decided instead of doing what's right, they'd further their immature acts and continue downloading without the eventual purchase. Regardless of the purchases or lack of purchases, the illegal downlaoding continued, furthering the lost sales. Regardless of this, condoning an illegal act is rarely right, and definitely wrong here.
The MPAA and/or RIAA is in the legal and moral right here. They deserve to get paid for their works. If people are not willing to pay for the works, they are not allowed to enjoy the works. Enjoying the works first and eventually, possibly paying for them later is not the legal nor ethical way to handle business. It's not the guidelines dictated by the owners of the works. And if one wants to enjoy the owner's works, the buyer will have to follow the guidelines, or avoid the purchase. If enough people avoid the purchase, the seller will have to change the guidelines.
However, as long as people enjoy the works without following the guidelines, the MPAA and/or RIAA has 1. the legal and ethical right to maintain they are losing sales, and 2. the legal and ethical right to sue all those who do not follow the guidelines they have set. This is not a debate. This is fact. Trying to rationalize illegal acts because sales figures increased is a horrid tactic to take, because the source is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's ignore legality and morality for a moment and talk about economics. File Sharing does not hurt the RIAA significantly.
<a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote. Despite the huge scale of downloading worldwide, that would be only a tiny contribution to the overall slide in album sales over the past several years, they said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's disingenuous for the RIAA to prosecute file sharers. The file sharers aren't actually hurting the industry, so all the lawsuits do is drive up legal expenses and stir up a lot of annoyance for everyone. They should stop claiming that file sharing is the reason why they aren't doing so well. Instead, if they looked at the real causes of low CD sales (e.g. crappy music), then everyone would be much happier. It's a win-win situation for them not to worry about file sharers. It's a lose-lose for them to prosecute file sharers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+May 21 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ May 21 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CNN Said that because so many people were downloading it that it was very slow.
So... today, I pretended to download it and it took 84 minutes, not the 40 hours they were talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So crowded networks slow down P2P sharing (specifically BitTorrent)? Once again, the mainstream press betray their lack of technical knowledge regarding stuff like this. One of the reporters probably tried to access the swarm through the CNN firewall, spent 5 minutes at 10K/sec, and wrote it up for his story.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the music is so bad, why are people downloading it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because it's good enough that people will listen to it if they can get it for free, but not if they have to pay for it. Because they wanted to hear the whole CD, so they could decide if they wanted to buy it or not. There are lots of reasons. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no, I can't throw aside morality. Wrong is wrong, no matter how much it benefits someone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is something wrong if it benefits someone while not harming anyone?
We really shouldn't be deabting whether downloading copyright infringing material (such as Ep3) is right or wrong. Like medhead said, RIAA and MPAA has the legal and moral right.
But what is debatable is how RIAA and MPAA handle the problem. They have done ridiculous things such as suing the pants of users out of thousands of dollars knowing they won;t be able to pay it. And they have shown some utter misconception on what the problem is exactly like asking to put tax on all recordable media and condeming file sharing technology like bittorrent.
And they have been utter slow in trying to take advantage of providing a legal means of online entertainment. They have had so many years since Napster time to learn what can be done. The companies that did came up with legal options in those days still did it wrong. Like Sony tried it once but had this stupid 3 play limit and then you need to pay again.
I honestly thing the music and movie industry should just take it like the software industry. Just accept the fact that piracy does occur and live with it. Don't try and wipe it out because the demand for downloads will always be there.
<!--QuoteBegin-im lost+May 21 2005, 11:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (im lost @ May 21 2005, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> then probably 50% of those people would never have bought it. While this doesn't necessarily make it right, it does show that the industry can benefit from file sharing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In this hypothetical situation:
75% downloaded and purchased. 25% downloaded.
NAPSTER FALLS
50% downloaded and purchased. 50% downloaded.
Either way, lost sales. I know what you're trying to get at, but there are better alternatives to illegal acts. Nobody's willing to try them, because downloading is the easy way out. Downloading music is wrong. 75% sales increase or 35% decrease, it's still wrong. As long as the MPAA and/or RIAA doesn't release the music to the illegal downloaders making it a legal act, it is wrong. It's up to either company to dictate terms. If the downloaders-soon-to-be-purchasers don't like it, they should boycott this supposedly horrid music and let both companies suffer the low sales.
<!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+May 21 2005, 11:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ May 21 2005, 11:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I honestly thing the music and movie industry should just take it like the software industry. Just accept the fact that piracy does occur and live with it. Don't try and wipe it out because the demand for downloads will always be there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The software industry doesn't "accept" piracy. They have different methods of fighting it, but they fight it just the same.
Once again, this goes back to morals. Just because the fight to stop illegal downloading seems neverending doesn't mean the fight shouldn't be waged. If the RIAA and/or MPAA has the legal right and the money to do so, they should be and are allowed to fight for what is rightfully theirs. It's understandable that people don't want to face the consequences for their actions, but that doesn't mean the consequences shouldn't be enacted.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Either way, lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 21 2005, 11:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 21 2005, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Either way, lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It most absolutely does! If you're in the possession of a song without paying for it, it's a lost sale. Whether or not a person intended on buying an album is pointless (I'll get back to this) because as I said, they're enjoying the music and/or video without paying for it, which is the legal requirement.
Back to the argument that "they never intended to pay for it in the first place". Of <b>course</b> they didn't; why else would they be downloading the thing? That's obvious. It doesn't make it right. If one wants to possess a video or song, they are required to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it for them. If they never intended to pay for it, and never intended to have someone else pay for it for them, then they are never to possess said item. It's a simple as that. If one doesn't pay for it, one doesn't get it.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
ignoring ethical and moral right or wrong for now:
let's assume a make believe country has, on average 20,000 annual CD sales, this is before the popular rise of file sharing programs, pre 1990 or whatever. skip to the present, now, those same people are purchasing CDs, 20,000 a year, however, some of them (let's assume 10%) decide they dont want to pay for their music, and start filesharing, only occasionaly making a negilible purchase from stores, this drops the annual legitimate purchase of CDs down to 18,000 a year, however, the rest of the population of this make believe country have the opportunity to download music now, and thousands of them do, they find music they like and want more and more of it, so let's assume 40% of those downloaders purchase a few CDs from the store because they want the real deal so to speak, this injects....
ah screw it, i don't feel like typing about this now, forget it, shows over.
file-sharing = good and morally right <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, and the economic benifits for recording industries is still benificial, they're just ignorant bastards.
On a related note, the BSA (the software industry association) use to have this $US20k reward on information relating to software piracy. RIAA and MPAA should so something like that. Hehehe
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+May 21 2005, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ May 21 2005, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ignoring ethical and moral right or wrong for now:
file-sharing = good and morally right <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, and the economic benifits for recording industries is still benificial, they're just ignorant bastards. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You contradict yourself. Regardless, you failed to prove your point. No matter how hard you try, you're wrong. It's neither legally or morally right. Legally wrong because the current law is set up to protect the copyright holder. Morally right because the organization selling the goods is entitled money for the items they are selling. That's not up to you, the consumer, to dictate. If you, the consumer, do not wish to purchase the product, you don't have to. Mind you, you don't get the product then, but that's the way proper business works. If enough people avoid purchasing music (and don't download it illegally), then the musc companies will do one of two things: go out of business or drop prices. It's as simple as that. There is no room for debate here. That's how it is.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+May 21 2005, 11:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 21 2005, 11:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Either way, lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It most absolutely does! If you're in the possession of a song without paying for it, it's a lost sale. Whether or not a person intended on buying an album is pointless (I'll get back to this) because as I said, they're enjoying the music and/or video without paying for it, which is the legal requirement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's wrong. Let's have a little example here:
Without Filesharing: 10,000 people own CD X 0 people downloaded CD X
With Filesharing: 9,000 people own CD X 20,000 downloaded CD X
Now, in the second example, is there 20,000 CDs of lost sales? No, there's only 1,000 CDs of lost sales. 1 downloaded CD != 1 lost sale.
Let's go back to my link: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, in the worst case scenario, 5000 downloaded CDs ~= 1 lost sale. Looks like you're wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back to the argument that "they never intended to pay for it in the first place". Of <b>course</b> they didn't; why else would they be downloading the thing? That's obvious. It doesn't make it right. If one wants to possess a video or song, they are required to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it for them. If they never intended to pay for it, and never intended to have someone else pay for it for them, then they are never to possess said item. It's a simple as that. If one doesn't pay for it, one doesn't get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never argued that it's right. I argued that the RIAA shouldn't prosecute people or try to change laws to inhibit filesharing, because filesharing doesn't hurt them significantly, and using it as a scapegoat only gives you bad PR, and most importantly, hides the real problem.
MedHead, it seems that your interpretation of "lost sales" is different from everyone elses. When discussing lost sales, we are comparing the amount of sales that occur now to the number that would occur if file sharing wasn't an option. If someone would never ever buy the music, and they download it, it isn't a lost sale. A lost sale means lost revenue, which certainly doesn't happen in that case.
No, a lost sale does not have to mean lost revenue. I'm using the terms the RIAA and MPAA are using, which is the correct version. I'll try to explain it differently, and then I'm done with this debate. I'm starting to repeat myself, and I've done gone through this argument too many times before: it's getting tired.
If you were a webmaster with art on the Internet for sale, and you found out the following facts:
1,526 people purchased the art 480 people downloaded it from P2P networks
Would you seriously not consider yourself out 480 sales? Chances are, once it hit your own pocketbook, you would. You've lost sales. Now, let's change things a bit:
Out of those 480 downloaders, 251 of them eventually purchased the art, contributing to the 1,526 purchases noted above and making them total 1,771.
Okay, so now you've found out that the illegal downloading is a potential source of income. Great, huh? You've supposedly "earned" 251 purchases. Regardless, there's an additional 221 lost sales! Sure, you've made 251 more than originally listed, but you're <b>still</b> out 221 sales. Would you accept the losses? What if those losses totalled in the millions? Would that be acceptable to you? I doubt it. You and every other business has every right to <b>every</b> item sold or illegally downloaded, no matter the cost. Denying a business the right to prosecute those who steal is wrong and coldhearted.
But, that's the end for me. I've said what I wanted to say, proven my points, backed up my arguments, and made a solid foundation of accuracy. This isn't arrogance, it's assuredness. This probably drives you nuts: I'm supposed to constantly be "searching" for the answers! I know I'm right here. No, I'm not backing out because I think I'm "losing" the argument (I've been accused of this before, even though in the other instances I was literally repeating myself half a dozen times). I'm just done with my point. I don't really need to expand upon it any more.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 10:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 10:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+May 21 2005, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ May 21 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except it's not. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. It really wouldn't matter if everyone downloaded the music illegally and then bought it: they're still wrong.
Let's assume that 75% of all those who downloaded songs illegally bought a CD. This is an unlikely number. But still, let's pretend that the case for illegally downloading songs was that great. 25% of downloaded songs are not purchased. That's 25% lost sales. It doesn't matter that 75% of sales increased: 25% was still lost, and that's a valid and worthwhile 25%.
Downloading songs causes lost sales, because not everyone who downloaded the song bought it. They are not allowed the entertainment of the song without paying for it, or having someone else pay for the license (such as radio stations). The amount of people who eventually did the right thing and bought the music isn't a worthy argument, because 1. they did something illegal to get to the result, and 2. not every person who did the illegal deed bought the album (and as I said before, this wouldn't absolve them of fault or consequences for their actions). Applauding illegal acts because the majority eventually does what's right is flawed.
35% of the illegal downloaders decided instead of doing what's right, they'd further their immature acts and continue downloading without the eventual purchase. Regardless of the purchases or lack of purchases, the illegal downlaoding continued, furthering the lost sales. Regardless of this, condoning an illegal act is rarely right, and definitely wrong here.
The MPAA and/or RIAA is in the legal and moral right here. They deserve to get paid for their works. If people are not willing to pay for the works, they are not allowed to enjoy the works. Enjoying the works first and eventually, possibly paying for them later is not the legal nor ethical way to handle business. It's not the guidelines dictated by the owners of the works. And if one wants to enjoy the owner's works, the buyer will have to follow the guidelines, or avoid the purchase. If enough people avoid the purchase, the seller will have to change the guidelines.
However, as long as people enjoy the works without following the guidelines, the MPAA and/or RIAA has 1. the legal and ethical right to maintain they are losing sales, and 2. the legal and ethical right to sue all those who do not follow the guidelines they have set. This is not a debate. This is fact. Trying to rationalize illegal acts because sales figures increased is a horrid tactic to take, because the source is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that... made no sense...
by searching limewire, I find songs by artists I've never HEARD of... if I like enough of those songs, I'll go and buy their cds! Then I'll rip from the CD's to make a custom CD that I use and DO NOT SHARE...
now, I've bought their CD's just for the HIGH QUALITY VERSIONS of the few songs I liked, then used that to make my own CD of just the songs I like...
If I never dle'd the song, I'd have never found out about em, would I...
MedHead, you can't lose something that you never had any possibility of getting. I guess we will have to just accept the fact that your definition is drastically different than what the rest of us are using. The MPAA and RIAA use that terminology to be deceptive.
<!--QuoteBegin-im lost+May 21 2005, 11:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (im lost @ May 21 2005, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MedHead, you can't lose something that you never had any possibility of getting. I guess we will have to just accept the fact that your definition is drastically different than what the rest of us are using. The MPAA and RIAA use that terminology to be deceptive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And thus convince those that are easily swayed to their side, and can get away with taxing already expensive computer parts...
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you were a webmaster with art on the Internet for sale, and you found out the following facts:
1,526 people purchased the art 480 people downloaded it from P2P networks
Would you seriously not consider yourself out 480 sales? Chances are, once it hit your own pocketbook, you would. You've lost sales. Now, let's change things a bit:
Out of those 480 downloaders, 251 of them eventually purchased the art, contributing to the 1,526 purchases noted above and making them total 1,771.
Okay, so now you've found out that the illegal downloading is a potential source of income. Great, huh? You've supposedly "earned" 251 purchases. Regardless, there's an additional 221 lost sales! Sure, you've made 251 more than originally listed, but you're <b>still</b> out 221 sales. Would you accept the losses? What if those losses totalled in the millions? Would that be acceptable to you? I doubt it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you were really in this situation, your next step would be to host the download file on your own site yourself, in lower resolution, as a marketing ploy (now that you know it works). If you are trying to make money by selling data on the internet, you start with the assumption that it <i>will</i> be copied, not that it won't. If you can get 50% of the copies to generate revenue for you, that is quite honestly highly successful, and most people would be very happy in that situation.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
I would like to add 2 points.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Law is an agreement.
PC games were subject to piracy, they now have demos. The gaming world has accepted piracy as a fact and it's still ramping up to be the biggest entertainment industry without much/any faltering. Even if MPAA's/RIAA'scurrent plan is a valid one, doesn't mean it's a good one.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
edited May 2005
yeah, medhead, you are assuming that all of those 480 people would have purchased the CD had they been unable to download it, a staggering percentage of those 480 people would never, <i>ever</i> have purchased the CD in the first place, they would most likely have thought something along the lines of "screw paying 25 bucks just because i like a few of their songs, i'll just catch them on the radio or something"
maybe 40 of those people would have purchased the songs, but those 480 people are not a loss of sales, they are a <i>potential new source of sales</i> if they decide to purchase it.
essentially, p2p networking has either <i>increased</i> or set-even the sales of CDs.
i can't even count how many CDs i purchased after listening to some new bands, primarily people i would never EVER would have found in the store, The Decemberists for instance. i made a thread a while back about them making a bittorrent of a musicd video "16 military wives", i would never, ever have heard of them had they not made their music available for free, at least that one song. and now i have two of their CDs... and i can't even count how many Nirvana Cds i have now for the sole reason that i was able to listen to their music from p2p networks, when normally i would never have spent the money to "take a chance" on them.
**edit**
i'm also agreeing with [Who]Them, it's not immoral, it's just illegal, i believe what I do is the correct course of action i should be taking, and that's good enough for me.
wehre 2 downlaod of the gaming + movies ? <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A communits be yuo? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+May 22 2005, 03:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ May 22 2005, 03:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cold nite... are you drunk again? really, get some sleep man, it's past midnight for most of us. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hay man the partehs juts begin ok?
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+May 22 2005, 03:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ May 22 2005, 03:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hay man the partehs juts begin ok? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well if that's true then what <i>the hell</i> are you doing on the NS forums? i mean seriously, go PARTY then, jesus i'll never understand you people.
<!--QuoteBegin-NeonSpyder+May 22 2005, 03:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NeonSpyder @ May 22 2005, 03:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+May 22 2005, 03:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ May 22 2005, 03:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hay man the partehs juts begin ok? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well if that's true then what <i>the hell</i> are you doing on the NS forums? i mean seriously, go PARTY then, jesus i'll never understand you people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> fien wahtevr yuor no fun.
Wait, we can sue the creators of the TCP/IP protocol... or ethernet!
The movie still set box-office records for opening day sales, I don't think the piracy hurt it THAT much.
Also compare this:
Person A refuses to see the movie in the theater (because of ticket prices, etc.) and isn't aware of the ability to download it.
Person B refuses to see the movie in the theater (because of ticket prices, etc.) but downloads it and watches it from home.
They're not "losing" money in either case, since neither person would go to see it in the theaters, and person B wouldn't go see it even if it WASN'T available online! (well, the majority of persons B)
1 download != loss of revenue equal to the value of one (overpriced) movie ticket
I probably would have never bought the 4 Radiohead, 4 Stone Temple Pilots, 2 Mr Scruff, and various other CDs I now own if it wasn't for P2P. I just didn't know about such music without the "hey, listen to this song!!!11oneoneone" factor with such a huge database of downloadable music.
I can't believe I just read this entire thread. You all are right and you all are wrong. There, somebody said it.
By the way, if you are mad at the way the music industry is going, don't buy any Music CDs. I haven't bought a Music CD since... Wow. More than 4 years. The last CD I can remember purchasing (in the US) was Superfast by Dynamite Hack. Love that CD to death, never buying another music CD in the US again. It's a damn shame the Music industry is set up like a cartel, otherwise more good music would make it "mainstream" and more "bad music" wouldn't. *shrug*
You all should stop arguing who is at fault here. Everyone is. Everyone is being a baby. The link is silly and not a good read. Goes to show that bad journalism also still exists.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 22 2005, 05:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 22 2005, 05:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Except it's not. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. It really wouldn't matter if everyone downloaded the music illegally and then bought it: they're still wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Same thing with our taxes. It's not because some are downloading that they can compensate out of everyone's pocket: they're still taking double my money.
Comments
Except it's not. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. It really wouldn't matter if everyone downloaded the music illegally and then bought it: they're still wrong.
Let's assume that 75% of all those who downloaded songs illegally bought a CD. This is an unlikely number. But still, let's pretend that the case for illegally downloading songs was that great. 25% of downloaded songs are not purchased. That's 25% lost sales. It doesn't matter that 75% of sales increased: 25% was still lost, and that's a valid and worthwhile 25%.
Downloading songs causes lost sales, because not everyone who downloaded the song bought it. They are not allowed the entertainment of the song without paying for it, or having someone else pay for the license (such as radio stations). The amount of people who eventually did the right thing and bought the music isn't a worthy argument, because 1. they did something illegal to get to the result, and 2. not every person who did the illegal deed bought the album (and as I said before, this wouldn't absolve them of fault or consequences for their actions). Applauding illegal acts because the majority eventually does what's right is flawed.
35% of the illegal downloaders decided instead of doing what's right, they'd further their immature acts and continue downloading without the eventual purchase. Regardless of the purchases or lack of purchases, the illegal downlaoding continued, furthering the lost sales. Regardless of this, condoning an illegal act is rarely right, and definitely wrong here.
The MPAA and/or RIAA is in the legal and moral right here. They deserve to get paid for their works. If people are not willing to pay for the works, they are not allowed to enjoy the works. Enjoying the works first and eventually, possibly paying for them later is not the legal nor ethical way to handle business. It's not the guidelines dictated by the owners of the works. And if one wants to enjoy the owner's works, the buyer will have to follow the guidelines, or avoid the purchase. If enough people avoid the purchase, the seller will have to change the guidelines.
However, as long as people enjoy the works without following the guidelines, the MPAA and/or RIAA has 1. the legal and ethical right to maintain they are losing sales, and 2. the legal and ethical right to sue all those who do not follow the guidelines they have set. This is not a debate. This is fact. Trying to rationalize illegal acts because sales figures increased is a horrid tactic to take, because the source is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's ignore legality and morality for a moment and talk about economics. File Sharing does not hurt the RIAA significantly.
<a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote. Despite the huge scale of downloading worldwide, that would be only a tiny contribution to the overall slide in album sales over the past several years, they said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's disingenuous for the RIAA to prosecute file sharers. The file sharers aren't actually hurting the industry, so all the lawsuits do is drive up legal expenses and stir up a lot of annoyance for everyone. They should stop claiming that file sharing is the reason why they aren't doing so well. Instead, if they looked at the real causes of low CD sales (e.g. crappy music), then everyone would be much happier. It's a win-win situation for them not to worry about file sharers. It's a lose-lose for them to prosecute file sharers.
And no, I can't throw aside morality. Wrong is wrong, no matter how much it benefits someone.
So... today, I pretended to download it and it took 84 minutes, not the 40 hours they were talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So crowded networks slow down P2P sharing (specifically BitTorrent)? Once again, the mainstream press betray their lack of technical knowledge regarding stuff like this. One of the reporters probably tried to access the swarm through the CNN firewall, spent 5 minutes at 10K/sec, and wrote it up for his story.
Because it's good enough that people will listen to it if they can get it for free, but not if they have to pay for it. Because they wanted to hear the whole CD, so they could decide if they wanted to buy it or not. There are lots of reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And no, I can't throw aside morality. Wrong is wrong, no matter how much it benefits someone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is something wrong if it benefits someone while not harming anyone?
But what is debatable is how RIAA and MPAA handle the problem. They have done ridiculous things such as suing the pants of users out of thousands of dollars knowing they won;t be able to pay it. And they have shown some utter misconception on what the problem is exactly like asking to put tax on all recordable media and condeming file sharing technology like bittorrent.
And they have been utter slow in trying to take advantage of providing a legal means of online entertainment. They have had so many years since Napster time to learn what can be done. The companies that did came up with legal options in those days still did it wrong. Like Sony tried it once but had this stupid 3 play limit and then you need to pay again.
I honestly thing the music and movie industry should just take it like the software industry. Just accept the fact that piracy does occur and live with it. Don't try and wipe it out because the demand for downloads will always be there.
In this hypothetical situation:
75% downloaded and purchased.
25% downloaded.
NAPSTER FALLS
50% downloaded and purchased.
50% downloaded.
Either way, lost sales. I know what you're trying to get at, but there are better alternatives to illegal acts. Nobody's willing to try them, because downloading is the easy way out. Downloading music is wrong. 75% sales increase or 35% decrease, it's still wrong. As long as the MPAA and/or RIAA doesn't release the music to the illegal downloaders making it a legal act, it is wrong. It's up to either company to dictate terms. If the downloaders-soon-to-be-purchasers don't like it, they should boycott this supposedly horrid music and let both companies suffer the low sales.
The software industry doesn't "accept" piracy. They have different methods of fighting it, but they fight it just the same.
Once again, this goes back to morals. Just because the fight to stop illegal downloading seems neverending doesn't mean the fight shouldn't be waged. If the RIAA and/or MPAA has the legal right and the money to do so, they should be and are allowed to fight for what is rightfully theirs. It's understandable that people don't want to face the consequences for their actions, but that doesn't mean the consequences shouldn't be enacted.
It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales.
It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most absolutely does! If you're in the possession of a song without paying for it, it's a lost sale. Whether or not a person intended on buying an album is pointless (I'll get back to this) because as I said, they're enjoying the music and/or video without paying for it, which is the legal requirement.
Back to the argument that "they never intended to pay for it in the first place". Of <b>course</b> they didn't; why else would they be downloading the thing? That's obvious. It doesn't make it right. If one wants to possess a video or song, they are required to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it for them. If they never intended to pay for it, and never intended to have someone else pay for it for them, then they are never to possess said item. It's a simple as that. If one doesn't pay for it, one doesn't get it.
let's assume a make believe country has, on average 20,000 annual CD sales, this is before the popular rise of file sharing programs, pre 1990 or whatever. skip to the present, now, those same people are purchasing CDs, 20,000 a year, however, some of them (let's assume 10%) decide they dont want to pay for their music, and start filesharing, only occasionaly making a negilible purchase from stores, this drops the annual legitimate purchase of CDs down to 18,000 a year, however, the rest of the population of this make believe country have the opportunity to download music now, and thousands of them do, they find music they like and want more and more of it, so let's assume 40% of those downloaders purchase a few CDs from the store because they want the real deal so to speak, this injects....
ah screw it, i don't feel like typing about this now, forget it, shows over.
file-sharing = good and morally right <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, and the economic benifits for recording industries is still benificial, they're just ignorant bastards.
file-sharing = good and morally right <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, and the economic benifits for recording industries is still benificial, they're just ignorant bastards. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You contradict yourself. Regardless, you failed to prove your point. No matter how hard you try, you're wrong. It's neither legally or morally right. Legally wrong because the current law is set up to protect the copyright holder. Morally right because the organization selling the goods is entitled money for the items they are selling. That's not up to you, the consumer, to dictate. If you, the consumer, do not wish to purchase the product, you don't have to. Mind you, you don't get the product then, but that's the way proper business works. If enough people avoid purchasing music (and don't download it illegally), then the musc companies will do one of two things: go out of business or drop prices. It's as simple as that. There is no room for debate here. That's how it is.
It's not lost sales if they downloaders would never have bought the albums in the first place. It's increased sales if people buy the albums because they were able to test them out first by downloading them.
Illegal file sharing does not necessarily mean lost sales. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It most absolutely does! If you're in the possession of a song without paying for it, it's a lost sale. Whether or not a person intended on buying an album is pointless (I'll get back to this) because as I said, they're enjoying the music and/or video without paying for it, which is the legal requirement. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's wrong. Let's have a little example here:
Without Filesharing:
10,000 people own CD X
0 people downloaded CD X
With Filesharing:
9,000 people own CD X
20,000 downloaded CD X
Now, in the second example, is there 20,000 CDs of lost sales? No, there's only 1,000 CDs of lost sales. 1 downloaded CD != 1 lost sale.
Let's go back to my link:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, in the worst case scenario, 5000 downloaded CDs ~= 1 lost sale. Looks like you're wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back to the argument that "they never intended to pay for it in the first place". Of <b>course</b> they didn't; why else would they be downloading the thing? That's obvious. It doesn't make it right. If one wants to possess a video or song, they are required to pay for it, or have someone else pay for it for them. If they never intended to pay for it, and never intended to have someone else pay for it for them, then they are never to possess said item. It's a simple as that. If one doesn't pay for it, one doesn't get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never argued that it's right. I argued that the RIAA shouldn't prosecute people or try to change laws to inhibit filesharing, because filesharing doesn't hurt them significantly, and using it as a scapegoat only gives you bad PR, and most importantly, hides the real problem.
If you were a webmaster with art on the Internet for sale, and you found out the following facts:
1,526 people purchased the art
480 people downloaded it from P2P networks
Would you seriously not consider yourself out 480 sales? Chances are, once it hit your own pocketbook, you would. You've lost sales. Now, let's change things a bit:
Out of those 480 downloaders, 251 of them eventually purchased the art, contributing to the 1,526 purchases noted above and making them total 1,771.
Okay, so now you've found out that the illegal downloading is a potential source of income. Great, huh? You've supposedly "earned" 251 purchases. Regardless, there's an additional 221 lost sales! Sure, you've made 251 more than originally listed, but you're <b>still</b> out 221 sales. Would you accept the losses? What if those losses totalled in the millions? Would that be acceptable to you? I doubt it. You and every other business has every right to <b>every</b> item sold or illegally downloaded, no matter the cost. Denying a business the right to prosecute those who steal is wrong and coldhearted.
But, that's the end for me. I've said what I wanted to say, proven my points, backed up my arguments, and made a solid foundation of accuracy. This isn't arrogance, it's assuredness. This probably drives you nuts: I'm supposed to constantly be "searching" for the answers! I know I'm right here. No, I'm not backing out because I think I'm "losing" the argument (I've been accused of this before, even though in the other instances I was literally repeating myself half a dozen times). I'm just done with my point. I don't really need to expand upon it any more.
Except it's not. As I said, the end doesn't justify the means. It really wouldn't matter if everyone downloaded the music illegally and then bought it: they're still wrong.
Let's assume that 75% of all those who downloaded songs illegally bought a CD. This is an unlikely number. But still, let's pretend that the case for illegally downloading songs was that great. 25% of downloaded songs are not purchased. That's 25% lost sales. It doesn't matter that 75% of sales increased: 25% was still lost, and that's a valid and worthwhile 25%.
Downloading songs causes lost sales, because not everyone who downloaded the song bought it. They are not allowed the entertainment of the song without paying for it, or having someone else pay for the license (such as radio stations). The amount of people who eventually did the right thing and bought the music isn't a worthy argument, because 1. they did something illegal to get to the result, and 2. not every person who did the illegal deed bought the album (and as I said before, this wouldn't absolve them of fault or consequences for their actions). Applauding illegal acts because the majority eventually does what's right is flawed.
35% of the illegal downloaders decided instead of doing what's right, they'd further their immature acts and continue downloading without the eventual purchase. Regardless of the purchases or lack of purchases, the illegal downlaoding continued, furthering the lost sales. Regardless of this, condoning an illegal act is rarely right, and definitely wrong here.
The MPAA and/or RIAA is in the legal and moral right here. They deserve to get paid for their works. If people are not willing to pay for the works, they are not allowed to enjoy the works. Enjoying the works first and eventually, possibly paying for them later is not the legal nor ethical way to handle business. It's not the guidelines dictated by the owners of the works. And if one wants to enjoy the owner's works, the buyer will have to follow the guidelines, or avoid the purchase. If enough people avoid the purchase, the seller will have to change the guidelines.
However, as long as people enjoy the works without following the guidelines, the MPAA and/or RIAA has 1. the legal and ethical right to maintain they are losing sales, and 2. the legal and ethical right to sue all those who do not follow the guidelines they have set. This is not a debate. This is fact. Trying to rationalize illegal acts because sales figures increased is a horrid tactic to take, because the source is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that... made no sense...
by searching limewire, I find songs by artists I've never HEARD of... if I like enough of those songs, I'll go and buy their cds! Then I'll rip from the CD's to make a custom CD that I use and DO NOT SHARE...
now, I've bought their CD's just for the HIGH QUALITY VERSIONS of the few songs I liked, then used that to make my own CD of just the songs I like...
If I never dle'd the song, I'd have never found out about em, would I...
And thus convince those that are easily swayed to their side, and can get away with taxing already expensive computer parts...
1,526 people purchased the art
480 people downloaded it from P2P networks
Would you seriously not consider yourself out 480 sales? Chances are, once it hit your own pocketbook, you would. You've lost sales. Now, let's change things a bit:
Out of those 480 downloaders, 251 of them eventually purchased the art, contributing to the 1,526 purchases noted above and making them total 1,771.
Okay, so now you've found out that the illegal downloading is a potential source of income. Great, huh? You've supposedly "earned" 251 purchases. Regardless, there's an additional 221 lost sales! Sure, you've made 251 more than originally listed, but you're <b>still</b> out 221 sales. Would you accept the losses? What if those losses totalled in the millions? Would that be acceptable to you? I doubt it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were really in this situation, your next step would be to host the download file on your own site yourself, in lower resolution, as a marketing ploy (now that you know it works). If you are trying to make money by selling data on the internet, you start with the assumption that it <i>will</i> be copied, not that it won't. If you can get 50% of the copies to generate revenue for you, that is quite honestly highly successful, and most people would be very happy in that situation.
So your example is flawed.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. Law is an agreement.
PC games were subject to piracy, they now have demos. The gaming world has accepted piracy as a fact and it's still ramping up to be the biggest entertainment industry without much/any faltering. Even if MPAA's/RIAA'scurrent plan is a valid one, doesn't mean it's a good one.
maybe 40 of those people would have purchased the songs, but those 480 people are not a loss of sales, they are a <i>potential new source of sales</i> if they decide to purchase it.
essentially, p2p networking has either <i>increased</i> or set-even the sales of CDs.
i can't even count how many CDs i purchased after listening to some new bands, primarily people i would never EVER would have found in the store, The Decemberists for instance. i made a thread a while back about them making a bittorrent of a musicd video "16 military wives", i would never, ever have heard of them had they not made their music available for free, at least that one song. and now i have two of their CDs... and i can't even count how many Nirvana Cds i have now for the sole reason that i was able to listen to their music from p2p networks, when normally i would never have spent the money to "take a chance" on them.
**edit**
i'm also agreeing with [Who]Them, it's not immoral, it's just illegal, i believe what I do is the correct course of action i should be taking, and that's good enough for me.
A communits be yuo? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
hay man the partehs juts begin ok?
well if that's true then what <i>the hell</i> are you doing on the NS forums? i mean seriously, go PARTY then, jesus i'll never understand you people.
well if that's true then what <i>the hell</i> are you doing on the NS forums? i mean seriously, go PARTY then, jesus i'll never understand you people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
fien wahtevr yuor no fun.
The movie still set box-office records for opening day sales, I don't think the piracy hurt it THAT much.
Also compare this:
Person A refuses to see the movie in the theater (because of ticket prices, etc.) and isn't aware of the ability to download it.
Person B refuses to see the movie in the theater (because of ticket prices, etc.) but downloads it and watches it from home.
They're not "losing" money in either case, since neither person would go to see it in the theaters, and person B wouldn't go see it even if it WASN'T available online! (well, the majority of persons B)
1 download != loss of revenue equal to the value of one (overpriced) movie ticket
I probably would have never bought the 4 Radiohead, 4 Stone Temple Pilots, 2 Mr Scruff, and various other CDs I now own if it wasn't for P2P. I just didn't know about such music without the "hey, listen to this song!!!11oneoneone" factor with such a huge database of downloadable music.
By the way, if you are mad at the way the music industry is going, don't buy any Music CDs. I haven't bought a Music CD since... Wow. More than 4 years. The last CD I can remember purchasing (in the US) was Superfast by Dynamite Hack. Love that CD to death, never buying another music CD in the US again. It's a damn shame the Music industry is set up like a cartel, otherwise more good music would make it "mainstream" and more "bad music" wouldn't. *shrug*
You all should stop arguing who is at fault here. Everyone is. Everyone is being a baby. The link is silly and not a good read. Goes to show that bad journalism also still exists.
Same thing with our taxes. It's not because some are downloading that they can compensate out of everyone's pocket: they're still taking double my money.