Netflix Is Not Going to Kill Piracy, Research Suggests

[nysmo]

Yeah, copying a movie is still not stealing, no matter how many times you and the likes of you keep repeating it.

This part I disagree with. It is stealing; it's theft of labor. If your boss refuses to pay you today can he say "I didnt steal anything"? He did steal something. He stole your time. He stole your expertise. He stole the gas money it cost for you to come to work. He stole the rent you pay to keep a roof over your head. He stole the decades of experience you spent training to get to this position in the first place. You exhausted resources to complete a task and those resources have now gone uncovered, so you are in fact at a loss. This is how hollywood functions. They pay actors, camera crews, writers and directors to all show up, produce something, and then get paid for it later. For them to do all of that for nothing because you "duplicated" their work is still stealing from them.

The part where it becomes grey is when you compare piracy to say stealing a loaf of bread. If you steal bread well that bread is gone and nobody else can choose to buy it. If you steal a movie the movie is still there and any paying customer can pay for it. This part I'm ok with. If the net result of a film is that 1000 people watch it, then you making it 1001 without paying doesnt change the expected value of their work. Now if 500 of those paying customers decide not to pay the film is in trouble, because they would have paid. I'm sure this happens a lot too, otherwise paying customers really ARE cheapskates sometimes. The question becomes "was I ever paying?". If the answer is yes, then you are stealing, even if it's digital. You wont be 3D printing many cars if the designer goes bankrupt and has to divert his efforts into something more tangible. It's important that we recognize and compensate people for their time when it comes to digital reproduction.

 

[Liver]

Theft of expertise, time and labor isn't even tax deductible (i.e. loss). The government is ok with it. If its not an actual material item, can't deduct that on taxes.

Just putting that out there.

 

[opfreak]

You've used that word 5 times now. Is that the crux of your argument?

Consider this; lets say you're an aspiring aeronautical engineer, however the cost to purchase a license for CAD software is $100,000. As an 18 year old freshman in college you obviously do not have $100,000 to spend in a single software license. Boeing does. NASA does. SpaceX does. But you dont. So you pirate it. You were never buying it anyway, so tell me; has the developer been harmed? What have they lost due to your stolen copy? Or are you just going to do the whole "LA LA LA LA you're a leach!!!" thing again?

When your a leech I will call you one. I' not going to say the developer was harmed in that case. But it means you are not a customer of the company and by definition a leech. Since you are enjoy the labors of others without paying for them. Not sorry if the truth hurts. Plus you are lying about CAD costs. Most companies have big student discounts. Most schools have access to it for free. And even commercial licenses for a majority of major CAD software do not run 100k per seat

 

[opfreak]

Have you never heard the saying pot calling the kettle black?

Bear in mind that in my example, the corporations are the ones stealing due to pure greed, all I'm doing is duplicating data that I couldnt justify purchasing in the first place or never had the realistic option of purchasing for anything even remotely resembling a realistic price, or couldn't purchase as it isn't even avaliable in my geographic location.

To hammer the point into your meagre cerebrum, it's no good crying 'theft' while desperately clinging onto an outdated business model based around the purest form of greed.

I'm happy to pay for content, but as the paying consumer, I dictate the terms.

You can dictate the terms if your a consumer. But the consumer choice is to buy or not buy a product. When you "steal" it, your no longer a consumer. Your just a common crook. Calling companies greedy is just you trying to rationalize the choice you mad to take product from them that you didn' pay for. Your the one being truly greedy. They want to get to be paid for what they created.

 

[opfreak]

I

Liars? That's a new low even for you. Unless you can back up that claim I suggest you hold your rabid horses.
And actually repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome is insanity.

As for corporations dictating the market it is a false premise. The consumers are the market, and we dictate the market by putting our money where our mouth is. As demonstrated by the point I made about videogames earlier that you completely ignored. Surely that invalidates the "pirates just want everything for free" argument completely.

PS If downloading a movie is stealing according to you, then so is printing a part for my car on a 3D printer at home, right?

Not sure why you have a problem with me repeating the truth.

In both cases you took intellectual knowledge away from the people that created it. Stealing isn't the perfect word for it. But it's not a bad word either, you are still benefiting from the work of others without paying for it.

 

[M76]

This part I disagree with. It is stealing; it's theft of labor. If your boss refuses to pay you today can he say "I didnt steal anything"? He did steal something. He stole your time. He stole your expertise. He stole the gas money it cost for you to come to work. He stole the rent you pay to keep a roof over your head. He stole the decades of experience you spent training to get to this position in the first place. You exhausted resources to complete a task and those resources have now gone uncovered, so you are in fact at a loss.

That would be the case if I custom ordered a movie to be made just for me, and then refuse to pay for it. But the actors and staff are already got their salary for producing the movie. At best you can say I'm cheating them out of a few cents of royalty that some might get depending on the contract they made with the studio. But honestly I don't feel that bad about a few cents in case of multi millionaire actors. The technicians and non-star staff certainly not benefit from royalties in any way, who are just as important to a movie as the star actor. But this is another topic entirely (the disproportionate distribution of the profits)

This is how hollywood functions. They pay actors, camera crews, writers and directors to all show up, produce something, and then get paid for it later. For them to do all of that for nothing because you "duplicated" their work is still stealing from them.

As I explained above it is not how they operate. And if something is unavailable to me due to geographic restrictions, then you can't argue that my downloading of it causes them any loss.

The part where it becomes grey is when you compare piracy to say stealing a loaf of bread. If you steal bread well that bread is gone and nobody else can choose to buy it. If you steal a movie the movie is still there and any paying customer can pay for it. This part I'm ok with. If the net result of a film is that 1000 people watch it, then you making it 1001 without paying doesnt change the expected value of their work. Now if 500 of those paying customers decide not to pay the film is in trouble, because they would have paid. I'm sure this happens a lot too, otherwise paying customers really ARE cheapskates sometimes. The question becomes "was I ever paying?". If the answer is yes, then you are stealing, even if it's digital. You wont be 3D printing many cars if the designer goes bankrupt and has to divert his efforts into something more tangible. It's important that we recognize and compensate people for their time when it comes to digital reproduction.

Yes it is a grey area, and I totally agree with that, creators should absolutely be paid for their work. The argument here is not about whether piracy is right or whether creators should get paid. The argument is the means in which they get paid. And I certainly don't agree with their extortion tactics and dividing up the globe to regions where they pick and choose what to make available where and where they should withhold content to maximally exploit regions.

The argument is also against the claim that pirates will always pirate because they're assholes, and do it for kicks. Which I levied the software purchases part against, but it fell on deaf ears. I get the same rhetoric recited back to me over and over again. I pay for whatever I feel deserves my money. That's how the market works. There are dozens of movies and other content that is unavailable trough piracy. It never made me change my mind about buying them trough a streaming service. If I feel the value is in proportion with the price, I pay for it. If it's not I don't. Piracy is never a part of the equation when I decide to pay for something or not.

 

[nysmo]

But the actors and staff are already got their salary for producing the movie.

Well where do you think that money came from?

 

[Aireoth]

I dont see what this has to do with anything. If you were never paying then you were never paying.

Not at current prices and not for what's being offered from legal sources due to lack of content that I'm interested in watching.

There is no point in talking to him, its pretty clear from reading his posts that his mind is both narrow (black and white view) and made up, not to mention the constant ad hominem.

I stand by my original statement that was excellently expanded upon. Trying to eliminate piracy is a fools errant, and largely a waste of resources, its basically throwing money down a bureaucratic black hole, at best they accomplish little, maybe they criminalize people, at worst they criminalize the wrong people (aunt, uncle, parents, etc). Yeah yeah opfreak, I know you want them criminalized, not talking to you unless you have something more constructive to say then complaining.

The goal as always should be to minimize piracy, which means driving content to peoples doors at a fair price. That is how you drive piracy down.

 

[opfreak]

There is no point in talking to him, its pretty clear from reading his posts that his mind is both narrow (black and white view) and made up, not to mention the constant ad hominem.

I stand by my original statement that was excellently expanded upon. Trying to eliminate piracy is a fools errant, and largely a waste of resources, its basically throwing money down a bureaucratic black hole, at best they accomplish little, maybe they criminalize people, at worst they criminalize the wrong people (aunt, uncle, parents, etc). Yeah yeah opfreak, I know you want them criminalized, not talking to you unless you have something more constructive to say then complaining.

The goal as always should be to minimize piracy, which means driving content to peoples doors at a fair price. That is how you drive piracy down.

My mind isn't narrow, your the one that's stuck in some box. The only way you'll talk to me is if I agree to your false premises.

People committing crimes, such as copyright volition's should be criminalized. What difference does it make if they are an aunt, uncle, parent or a single dude? I'm not even disagreeing with you that going after pirates is generally a waste of time.

My point is that the people that created that content have a right to do with it what they want. If they want to sell it at an outrages price that should be their right. Consumers generally have no right to anything at 'fair' price, companies that make products set prices to whatever level they think consumers will pay for them. If companies start charging too much, they either lose sales, and money, or someone else comes in at a lower price to take those sales.

You seem to think that you as a consumer have some magical right to dictate what things cost, AND if you don't get them at that price the right to pirate. That's just plain bullshit.

Besides, who defines what's 'fair' obviously the people that PAID to see/buy/rent a movie, or game thought the price was fair, otherwise they would have skipped out on it. It seems like the only people that don't think prices are fair are those that pirate them, and hence they see the value of the product as zero. Which does beg the question, if you don't think the product is worth anything, why are you wasting your time watching it/playing it?

But please continue your rationalization of taking others work and not paying for it, you obviously need to continue repeating whatever falsehoods you hold so very dear to help yourself sleep at night.

 

[Spaceninja]

My mind isn't narrow, your the one that's stuck in some box. The only way you'll talk to me is if I agree to your false premises.

People committing crimes, such as copyright volition's should be criminalized. What difference does it make if they are an aunt, uncle, parent or a single dude? I'm not even disagreeing with you that going after pirates is generally a waste of time.

My point is that the people that created that content have a right to do with it what they want. If they want to sell it at an outrages price that should be their right. Consumers generally have no right to anything at 'fair' price, companies that make products set prices to whatever level they think consumers will pay for them. If companies start charging too much, they either lose sales, and money, or someone else comes in at a lower price to take those sales.

You seem to think that you as a consumer have some magical right to dictate what things cost, AND if you don't get them at that price the right to pirate. That's just plain bullshit.

Besides, who defines what's 'fair' obviously the people that PAID to see/buy/rent a movie, or game thought the price was fair, otherwise they would have skipped out on it. It seems like the only people that don't think prices are fair are those that pirate them, and hence they see the value of the product as zero. Which does beg the question, if you don't think the product is worth anything, why are you wasting your time watching it/playing it?

But please continue your rationalization of taking others work and not paying for it, you obviously need to continue repeating whatever falsehoods you hold so very dear to help yourself sleep at night.

I'm not for or against piracy. I don't personally care as I have no dog in this hunt. I do have a question for you about paying for content. If someone borrows a movie, book, tv series on DVD from a friend and doens't pay a viewing "fee" to the copyright holder, does that make them a leech and a thief? They got to enjoy the content for free.

 

[opfreak]

I'm not for or against piracy. I don't personally care as I have no dog in this hunt. I do have a question for you about paying for content. If someone borrows a movie, book, tv series on DVD from a friend and doens't pay a viewing "fee" to the copyright holder, does that make them a leech and a thief? They got to enjoy the content for free.

content was already paid for. Covered under current law.

 

[Spaceninja]

content was already paid for. Covered under current law.

But the consumer didn't pay for it. They "stole" a sale. That's the argument the media companies are making. You can't equate one download = one lost sale / rental / ticket. Chances are that person was never going to buy the product anyway.
The person standing on the street corner selling bootlegs is stealing. They are profiting by selling someone elses property.

You'll never get some people to pay for content, they will rationalise it however they want. There are others that could be converted into sales, however t seems like the media companies don't want to do that. You're right, they don't have to make it easy for you to get the content in the way you want it.

Media isn't a physical thing that can be held in your hand, not really. Only the physical media the bits reside on.

The only way to mitigate piracy is to listen to the consumer and adjust accordingly. Accept that some people are never going to "buy" your content. No matter if they borrow the movie from the public library, a friend or download it, all of those people are a lost sale. If you didn't pay, you're a lost sale, doesn't matter if you broke the law, or abided by the law, if you didn't pay you are a lost sale.

 

[opfreak]

But the consumer didn't pay for it. They "stole" a sale. That's the argument the media companies are making. You can't equate one download = one lost sale / rental / ticket. Chances are that person was never going to buy the product anyway.
The person standing on the street corner selling bootlegs is stealing. They are profiting by selling someone elses property.

You'll never get some people to pay for content, they will rationalise it however they want. There are others that could be converted into sales, however t seems like the media companies don't want to do that. You're right, they don't have to make it easy for you to get the content in the way you want it.

Media isn't a physical thing that can be held in your hand, not really. Only the physical media the bits reside on.

The only way to mitigate piracy is to listen to the consumer and adjust accordingly. Accept that some people are never going to "buy" your content. No matter if they borrow the movie from the public library, a friend or download it, all of those people are a lost sale. If you didn't pay, you're a lost sale, doesn't matter if you broke the law, or abided by the law, if you didn't pay you are a lost sale.

I'm not saying they lost a sale. I'm saying pirates benefit for a product without paying for it. And I don't think you should listen to people that are not going to buy for, and pay for your product. Look at the posters here, they say they are willing to pay a 'fair' price. But 'fair' is meaningless. They aren't willing to pay for the companies are charging, others are. So does that mean the price is unfair? Its seems like the price is only unfair in the eyes of people not paying for products.

 

[Aireoth]

My mind isn't narrow, your the one that's stuck in some box. The only way you'll talk to me is if I agree to your false premises.

People committing crimes, such as copyright volition's should be criminalized. What difference does it make if they are an aunt, uncle, parent or a single dude? I'm not even disagreeing with you that going after pirates is generally a waste of time.

My point is that the people that created that content have a right to do with it what they want. If they want to sell it at an outrages price that should be their right. Consumers generally have no right to anything at 'fair' price, companies that make products set prices to whatever level they think consumers will pay for them. If companies start charging too much, they either lose sales, and money, or someone else comes in at a lower price to take those sales.

You seem to think that you as a consumer have some magical right to dictate what things cost, AND if you don't get them at that price the right to pirate. That's just plain bullshit.

Besides, who defines what's 'fair' obviously the people that PAID to see/buy/rent a movie, or game thought the price was fair, otherwise they would have skipped out on it. It seems like the only people that don't think prices are fair are those that pirate them, and hence they see the value of the product as zero. Which does beg the question, if you don't think the product is worth anything, why are you wasting your time watching it/playing it?

But please continue your rationalization of taking others work and not paying for it, you obviously need to continue repeating whatever falsehoods you hold so very dear to help yourself sleep at night.

1. Content creators are the ones complaining about piracy and looking for ways to combat it, I am suggesting how generate the most success against piracy.

2. You assume I'm saying consumer have magical rights, I never said that.

3. What are you on about. I'm talking about economics. Market price, supply and demand, fair pricing, all are part of economic, its broadly refereed to as the price that the market will bear. For example, dress shoes in Canada cost about 3-5 times what they cost in the states, even when the dollar was at parity. This is because Canadians will pay that much for those shoes, and thus the market charges that much.

3a. A fair price is determined by both the consumer and seller, it is the point at which the supply and demand meet in traditional economics, In this instance there is no limit to supply, thus the price is driven by how much the consumer will pay, and how much of the market the provider wants to reach. If the producers are so concerned about piracy detrimentally impacting their overall sales, or if it actually is, then the solution is to get that content to the consumers door through a means and price that the consumer will pay. Studies have shown that most people will pay given the ability to pay.

3b. Ability to pay, you completely gloss over this, some people do not have the ability to pay, lets just call them the poor at this time. The poor want entertainment, cannot afford it, society deems they are not allowed that content because they cannot pay for it. Regardless of my personal views on the issues behind the poor, people are dangerous when bored, they are extra dangerous when bored with little to nothing to lose. You decide if its worth letting them pirate content to keep them entertained and thus less likely to cause societal issues, or if you'd rather just lock them up after those issues arise and pay to keep them there.

4. Ad hominem.

Edit: I skipped your first line, and am trying really hard not to result to ad hominem because so far I have no respect for you in this conversation. There is nothing about agreeing with my premise, but rather presenting something worth a conversation, which is what I attempted to do above to your rage box. solutions, identifying the actual problem, not just rage spasming on your keyboard because you can't get out of that box you accuse me of being in.

Edit: Missed another line, aunt, uncle etc. Clearly you missed the reference, I am talking about criminalizing the person that pays for the internet connection, when someone else in the household committed the crime. I'm also referring to the FACT that your prisons are already overflowing, and adding more people to that powder keg is (in particular non-violent offenders), in my opinion, a bad idea.

Edit: minor grammar edit.

 

[nysmo]

It seems like the only people that don't think prices are fair are those that pirate them, and hence they see the value of the product as zero.

No you still dont get it, you're still so wrapped up in this seething hatred of "thieves" that you cant understand how results oriented you are being. I could challenge you right now to go download a $5000 copy of AutoCAD because you work in the field of engineering. But you cant afford AutoCAD so you decline.

AutoCAD net profit: $0

OR, you could pirate it because you want to have it to kickstart your own moonlight design business

AutoCAD net profit: $0

The only difference is if you actually could afford to buy it, then you should. But today? It doesnt change a thing for Autodesk.

 

[dark_reign]

content was already paid for. Covered under current law.

But your argument doesn't hold up if someone loans a DVD to co-workers, friends, family members, etc. By your definition those are lost sales i.e. piracy.

 

[Spaceninja]

I'm not saying they lost a sale. I'm saying pirates benefit for a product without paying for it. And I don't think you should listen to people that are not going to buy for, and pay for your product. Look at the posters here, they say they are willing to pay a 'fair' price. But 'fair' is meaningless. They aren't willing to pay for the companies are charging, others are. So does that mean the price is unfair? Its seems like the price is only unfair in the eyes of people not paying for products.

True, for some price is always going to be a concern, no matter if it is a $1 a show and $5 a movie. Chances are it is going to be on some streaming service that you have to subscribe to. RIght now there isn't a streaming service like cable. People want cable without bundles.

 

[BulletDust]

You can dictate the terms if your a consumer. But the consumer choice is to buy or not buy a product. When you "steal" it, your no longer a consumer. Your just a common crook. Calling companies greedy is just you trying to rationalize the choice you mad to take product from them that you didn' pay for. Your the one being truly greedy. They want to get to be paid for what they created.

Except I can't buy the product due to outdated business practices that a very greedy industry refuse to let go of, to the point that they have manipulated copyright law to prop up their aging model and lobby the governments of the world to force a witch hunt on desperate consumers doing everything they can to access content in a way that's not structured to rob as much money out of their back pocket as possible.

Copyright law was never originally designed to allow for the monopolization of a market and the fact you refuse to comprehend is that every time someone pirates content they're a lost customer. You're attempting to force a thinly constructed argument by claiming 'theft' and stating that content creators are loosing money, however all content creators need to do is remove the ridiculous restrictions on content and adjust their pricing and they stand to make more money by reclaiming lost customers to piracy - I still see no reason why US Netflix has so much more content than the rest of the world and see no reason why I can't watch X-Files from the bloody 80's in my geographic location FFS.

Saying "We're going to restrict content and charge an arm and a leg for it via pay TV packages that are structured to cost as much as possible while lobbying the governments of the world to treat those that don't support your business model as criminals" is an outright joke - It's capitalism gone crazy.

 

[BulletDust]

To put the argument into the correct perspective, free from the propaganda tactics of the media combined with RIAA, MPAA and FACT - The issue is not that piracy is increasing, the issue is that content creators are loosing customers. You loose customers due to poor business practices.

 

[opfreak]

No you still dont get it, you're still so wrapped up in this seething hatred of "thieves" that you cant understand how results oriented you are being. I could challenge you right now to go download a $5000 copy of AutoCAD because you work in the field of engineering. But you cant afford AutoCAD so you decline.

AutoCAD net profit: $0

OR, you could pirate it because you want to have it to kickstart your own moonlight design business

AutoCAD net profit: $0

The only difference is if you actually could afford to buy it, then you should. But today? It doesnt change a thing for Autodesk.

so its OK for you to make a profit but not autocad? Maybe if you cant afford the tools you shouldn't start your own business? If you were into metal fab, but couldn't afford a welder, would it be ok to go out to a store and 'borrower' theirs for a while?

 

[opfreak]

To put the argument into the correct perspective, free from the propaganda tactics of the media combined with RIAA, MPAA and FACT - The issue is not that piracy is increasing, the issue is that content creators are loosing customers. You loose customers due to poor business practices.

Their poor business practices do no justify piracy. Let them loose money, and customers either they change how they do business or they go under.

 

[Spaceninja]

so its OK for you to make a profit but not autocad? Maybe if you cant afford the tools you shouldn't start your own business? If you were into metal fab, but couldn't afford a welder, would it be ok to go out to a store and 'borrower' theirs for a while?

AutoCAD is a poor example as there are free alternatives that will get you going. You will reach a point where you'll have to pony up the cash to move forward. Software in general is a bad comparison. Media can't be compared to a physical product. That is why people don't view it as stealing. If you walk into a store and stuff a hammer down your pants, that is obviously stealing. The store has to write that off as a loss. WIth media if someone downloads a copy of your work, the production company doesn't write off a download as loss on their tax forms at the end of the year because they lost the ability to sell and distribute that work.

 

[Shotglass01]

I'm not for or against piracy. I don't personally care as I have no dog in this hunt. I do have a question for you about paying for content. If someone borrows a movie, book, tv series on DVD from a friend and doens't pay a viewing "fee" to the copyright holder, does that make them a leech and a thief? They got to enjoy the content for free.

content was already paid for. Covered under current law.

Cool bro, then I'll continue to "borrow" the copy you paid for and feel very good sleeping at night. KTHXBAI!

 

[BulletDust]

Their poor business practices do no justify piracy. Let them loose money, and customers either they change how they do business or they go under.

No they don't - They lead to piracy.

Your argument is as thin and arrogant as the argument put forward by the content creators themselves, in fact judging by your postings I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't work in such a corrupt industry.

 

[opfreak]

But your argument doesn't hold up if someone loans a DVD to co-workers, friends, family members, etc. By your definition those are lost sales i.e. piracy.

if you cant see the deference between lending something already paid for, where a single copy is passed around, vs copying content over and over, and I cant help you.

 

[opfreak]

No they don't - They lead to piracy.

Your argument is as thin and arrogant as the argument put forward by the content creators themselves, in fact judging by your postings I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't work in such a corrupt industry.

LOL. No people that don't respect laws, and property rights lead to piracy. No one is forced to pirate because of bad business decisions.

 

[opfreak]

AutoCAD is a poor example as there are free alternatives that will get you going. You will reach a point where you'll have to pony up the cash to move forward. Software in general is a bad comparison. Media can't be compared to a physical product. That is why people don't view it as stealing. If you walk into a store and stuff a hammer down your pants, that is obviously stealing. The store has to write that off as a loss. WIth media if someone downloads a copy of your work, the production company doesn't write off a download as loss on their tax forms at the end of the year because they lost the ability to sell and distribute that work.

I disagree that autoCad is a bad example. Using your line of think, there are free alternatives for entrainment. OTA TV, youtube. Borrowing movies from the library. Gaming is a bit harder, but just because something costs money, you not having the money to pay for it, doesn't give you the right to take it.

Pirates don't view it as stealing because of 1 (this is legit) the owner didn't physically lose an item. But beyond there isn't much difference.

Pirates have rationalized that because some didn't loose a physical item, then its ok to take. if pirates somehow were able to rationalize it in there minds its OK, they would steal physical items as well. Also important, piracy is easy, its hard to get caught, consequences for doing it are low.

 

[BulletDust]

LOL. No people that don't respect laws, and property rights lead to piracy. No one is forced to pirate because of bad business decisions.

People are literally forced to piracy due to a lack of realistic options.

Corporations that don't respect their customers lead to piracy, your capitalist mindset has things ass about. You can't rip people off and expect the governments of the world to prop up your rip off business model by manipulating laws that were never designed to protect monopolistic behavior.

Content creators have rationalized their behaviour by exploiting laws that were never designed to protect it.

 

[opfreak]

People are literally forced to piracy due to a lack of realistic options.

Corporations that don't respect their customers lead to piracy, your capitalist mindset has things ass about. You can't rip people off and expect the governments of the world to prop up your rip off business model by manipulating laws that were never designed to protect monopolistic behavior.

Content creators have rationalized their behaviour by exploiting laws that were never designed to protect it.

Literally forced to pirate? Really? if you don't watch a show or play a game, do you die or something?

 

[BulletDust]

Literally forced to pirate? Really? if you don't watch a show or play a game, do you die or something?

No, I've got an expensive hometheater and no content to play on it due to outdated and outrageously structured business practices. As a potential consumer I'm happy to pay for content, provided it's actually available and priced in a way that I can justify the purchase.

 

[opfreak]

No, I've got an expensive hometheater and no content to play on it due to outdated and outrageously structured business practices. As a potential consumer I'm happy to pay for content, provided it's actually available and priced in a way that I can justify the purchase.

Right there is no legal content for you to purchase. You spent thousands on a hometeather, but are too cheap to buy a Blu-ray? LOL. No OTA channels? No streaming of any kind? Your just cheap

 

[BulletDust]

Right there is no legal content for you to purchase. You spent thousands on a hometeather, but are too cheap to buy a Blu-ray? LOL. No OTA channels? No streaming of any kind? Your just cheap

No, not at all.

Due to geo blocking the release of that Bluray is about six months behind the release date in the US and I'm so eager for such content that I do not want to wait due to artificially imposed restrictions on behalf of content creators - If that's not someone willing to pay a fair and reasonable price for content as a potential customer, than I don't know what is! Furthermore, $40.00 for a Bluray is not a fair and reasonable price.

Content creators need to release content globally at the same time instead of relying on an outdated business model.

I also do not want a physical disc, they take up too much space, I want the data so I can store it on my server - Discs are so late 90s.

This is what the market is demanding and the consumers are the ones with the leverage. Content creators are in no position to force an outdated business model.

 

[opfreak]

No, not at all.

Due to geo blocking the release of that Bluray is about six months behind the release date in the US and I'm so eager for such content that I do not want to wait due to artificially imposed restrictions on behalf of content creators - If that's not someone willing to pay a fair and reasonable price for content as a potential customer, than I don't know what is! Furthermore, $40.00 for a Bluray is not a fair and reasonable price.

Content creators need to release content globally at the same time instead of relying on an outdated business model.

I also do not want a physical disc, they take up too much space, I want the data so I can store it on my server - Discs are so late 90s.

This is what the market is demanding and the consumers are the ones with the leverage. Content creators are in no position to force an outdated business model.

no this is what a cheap bastard like you is demanding. Your willing to spend thousands on a tv, speakers, receiver, but OMG paying 40 bucks for something to actually see is too much money.. Waiting a few months will just kill you. I mean how else can you live if you have to wait 6 months to see transformers, the world will just end.

 

[BulletDust]

no this is what a cheap bastard like you is demanding. Your willing to spend thousands on a tv, speakers, receiver, but OMG paying 40 bucks for something to actually see is too much money.. Waiting a few months will just kill you. I mean how else can you live if you have to wait 6 months to see transformers, the world will just end.

Settle with the personal attacks, it weakens your argument.

As a consumer I have to justify purchases, I don't blindly blow money because corporations demand it - As is the case with content.

I can justify the cost of electronics, I cannot justify the cost of a Bluray - Especially when it's on physical media that I don't want, released behind the rest of the world.

How long have you been working in the industry?

 

[opfreak]

Settle with the personal attacks, it weakens your argument.

As a consumer I have to justify purchases, I don't blindly blow money because corporations demand it - As is the case with content.

I can justify the cost of electronics, I cannot justify the cost of a Bluray - Especially when it's on physical media that I don't want, released behind the rest of the world.

How long have you been working in the industry?

I'm sorry my truth speaking is so offense. I mean I should really be careful to not offend self identified pirates. They might come into my house and take my things, because I'm greedy for not giving it to them for a price they demand.

Its amazing to me that your ok with spending thousands on tvs, etc etc, but are too cheap to actually pay for content, it seems backwards.


But please continue telling us how you are some righteous person for taking advantaged of everyone that is paying for content. Please continue calling others greedy, when you don't want to pay for what they produced.

 

[BulletDust]

I'm sorry my truth speaking is so offense. I mean I should really be careful to not offend self identified pirates. They might come into my house and take my things, because I'm greedy for not giving it to them for a price they demand.

Its amazing to me that your ok with spending thousands on tvs, etc etc, but are too cheap to actually pay for content, it seems backwards.


But please continue telling us how you are some righteous person for taking advantaged of everyone that is paying for content. Please continue calling others greedy, when you don't want to pay for what they produced.

Mate, I don't give a shit what you say. I simply stated that name calling weakens your argument as it makes you look like a fool.

I'm also posting in a fairly general fashion, don't assume that I simply 'pirate'. Where content is worth the money outlaid I have no problem paying for it.

An individual pirating content is a lost customer and the industry needs to adapt, whining about piracy and manipulating the governments of the world by manipulating the copyright act is not going to slow the flow of data.

 

[Spaceninja]

I disagree that autoCad is a bad example. Using your line of think, there are free alternatives for entrainment. OTA TV, youtube. Borrowing movies from the library. Gaming is a bit harder, but just because something costs money, you not having the money to pay for it, doesn't give you the right to take it.

Pirates don't view it as stealing because of 1 (this is legit) the owner didn't physically lose an item. But beyond there isn't much difference.

Pirates have rationalized that because some didn't loose a physical item, then its ok to take. if pirates somehow were able to rationalize it in there minds its OK, they would steal physical items as well. Also important, piracy is easy, its hard to get caught, consequences for doing it are low.

Software is a bad example. There isn't one CAD package. If AutoCAD is too expensive, there are tons of free or much cheaper alternatives. What is the alternative to Game of Thrones? There isn't one. You either watch it or don't. You can't say well HBO is charging too much, or it won't play on my device so I guess I'll go over to Amazon and get last night's episode there.

Downloading AutoCAD and using it in your business to make money with it is the same as the guy selling DVD's out of his trunk. They are making a profit on something that they didn't not pay to use.

 

[mlcarson]

If you want to stop piracy then instead of streaming video -- offer MP4 downloads of the content. That way customers can watch the content when they want without having to worry about Internet access. Customers also don't want to be saddled with DRM restrictions and forced commercials when they are paying for content. The product that the pirates are offering is superior to what Netflix is offering. If I could pay a Netflix price for a safe marketplace that contains the same product that the pirates offer -- I'd do it. The content creators will never go along with that though so would rather saddle their customers with an inferior offering than that of the pirates and then complain about piracy.

 

[opfreak]

Mate, I don't give a shit what you say. I simply stated that name calling weakens your argument as it makes you look like a fool.

I'm also posting in a fairly general fashion, don't assume that I simply 'pirate'. Where content is worth the money outlaid I have no problem paying for it.

An individual pirating content is a lost customer and the industry needs to adapt, whining about piracy and manipulating the governments of the world by manipulating the copyright act is not going to slow the flow of data.

A person that will never pay, and never has is not a costumer. You have the option of buying content but are to cheap to pay for it, so you pirate. Which means the value you place on that content is close to 0. Why should a company listen to anyone that places that little value on their product?

Oh because if it was a dollar you'd buy it? If they can get 10 people to pay 10 bucks for content, or 50 that pay a 1, which would they rather have?

Your not only cheap, your also impatient, the longer you wait, the cheaper things like movies tend to get, but you want instant content for a price close to zero. Most/all top tier media companies are not going to give you that.

 

[opfreak]

Software is a bad example. There isn't one CAD package. If AutoCAD is too expensive, there are tons of free or much cheaper alternatives. What is the alternative to Game of Thrones? There isn't one. You either watch it or don't. You can't say well HBO is charging too much, or it won't play on my device so I guess I'll go over to Amazon and get last night's episode there.

Downloading AutoCAD and using it in your business to make money with it is the same as the guy selling DVD's out of his trunk. They are making a profit on something that they didn't not pay to use.

But there is no need to watch GOT. none, you might want to, but your life will go on without it.

I would not do business with a guy that did not have a legit copy of Cad software, the risk is too high. If you are too cheap to spend 200 bucks (rough monthly cost of ACad, or ~122 a month if you pay yearly) then that means you don't value your work. And I don't want to risk the legal mess behind you creating work for me on unlicensed software.