Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
A TV show and a movie are two different things. Often TV shows are developed and tested by the same networks that air them. They can create one cheap pilot episode and see how it does. If it does well then they can go ahead and make an entire season of shows.
I suppose they could guess how much to pay for a movie, but you know that would break down really fast. As soon as there was a hit movie that made a lot of money any movie like that that followed would want a lot more money for licensing and since there was no way of knowing if that new movie was going to be a hit or a flop, it would require the studios to take a much larger risk and pay the higher price to get it. Plus, if it is a rated R movie they now also have the disadvantage of competing against the unedited version of it. Hell, it's fair use after all right? We want access shifting. I want to watch The Hangover, but I can't get to the theater and I don't want to rent the DVD or pay for a pay-per-view so I will watch it on NBC. What? NBC is editing and making it rated PG? I don't want that. I want it how I want it when I want it and since that is not available I will just download it for free.
|
did i ever say that no
all i am talking about is removing the monopoly level pricing from medium selection
if the medium has rules that dictate version changes then that is legitimate
downloading a movie as you are justifying would still be a copyright infringement because that would represent a violation of that first sale principle.
it would not be covered by fair use of access shifting.
access shifting is just designed to stop the abuse of medium selection period
stop trying to artificially extending to make a straw man arguement to argue against.
Quote:
I would assume the fact that home computers went from being something only a few people had to something that was very commonplace in people's homes had a lot to do with the price reductions of storage devices. Everything has dropped in price, not just hard drives.
|
i didn't say hard drive i said solid state disk.
your talking about the commidization of hard ware as the supply increases. The problem with that is solid state disk was used exclusively in very high end server to speed up the delivery of information. Solid state disk was never used in every day computers
which means it would never been commodinized by volume increase
instead of seeing the price drops that they saw (because of commercialization in a consumer device) they would have seen price drop that another technology which was limited to high end equipment (fiber optic network cards)
assuming those price drop level you would still be paying $4 /mb today (maybe if your luck $3)
that means an ipod would cost $640,000 (480,000)
Quote:
You make a decent point here. However, this still doesn't prove that releasing your movie in every medium on the day it comes out will help improve your earnings. As a matter of fact the one movie that tried to release on DVD, pay-per-view and theater at the same time was a flop.
|
but that because the perculation effect hasn't replaced the forced medium selection effect in that case
that the point of what i am saying.
will some movies fail under that senerio yes
should i care no
using a monopoly to prop up an inferior offering should never be considered valid in a free market enterprise system.
Quote:
Still, 60/trillion per year? Doubtful. It will create some jobs, but we can't know how many. You are pulling numbers out your ass.
|
but you missed the point again
it doesn't matter how many jobs are created
because physical goods would be replacing digital goods
and physical goods have LOCAL job creation potential
And physiical goods require more people to support
such a shift will always create more jobs
eliminate monopoly abuses that are holding back technological advancements will alway result in a net benefit period.
Quote:
According to Box Office Mojo http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ Here are some numbers
2008- 607 movies released.
2009 - 521 movies released
2010 - on pace for around 450, but there might be closer to 500 with the big influx of summer movies.
I might just be a world class moron and all, but that seems like fewer movies are being made. Add in the fact that Paramount just started a new division where they will produce 10 movies per year with a budget of 100K each. They are searching for diamonds in the rough and trying to reduce costs.
|
so your proof is a number that deliberately ignore all the movies released under the new medium
2009 had 315 movies release thru the internet (bit torrent etc)
add those back in and movies increased.
Quote:
|
Another good example would be some newspapers. There are newspapers going out of business all the time. People are starting to get their news online. In your world I would get online and check the headlines out on CNN.com or whatever news site I like, but then I would "upgrade" to the premium experience and pay my 35 cents for a local newspaper so I can read more local news, op/ed, columns etc., but that isn't happening. Just the opposite is happening. There is enough new for free online now that many people have turned away from the paper all together. It turns out that free is good enough, no need to actually pay for something.
|
i find it funny that you acknowledge the medium competition in your very next statement that you deliberately ignored to make your bogus point.
Quote:
Please post some proof that the VCR created 5 jobs for every job that was "suspected" to have been lost.
|
already did when i posted the transcript to the congressional hearing where jack v claimed that the vcr was the boston strangler
google it
Quote:
|
In reality if your DVD player dies you throw it out and buy a new one. Only if it is something that is more expensive like a TV to you actually bother to get it fixed.
|
and some how you believe that new dvd is magically created without someone putting it together
delivering it
stocking the shelf
Quote:
|
I never started this whole thing as an argument over who created more jobs. My point has always been that content producers should be allowed to control the distribution of their content and you disagree with that. You think that if they choose to distribute it in any way they should be forced to make it available to everyone in every medium at the same time and if not then you should be allowed to download it at will. We will never agree on this so really there is no use in continuing this argument.
|
but wasn't this the whole point of the copyright monopoly to protect the insentive to create media.
the whole point of fair use was to prevent that monopoly from being abused to cause more harm then benefit.
There is absolute no point in having fair use at all if you don't care about the economic impact of the abuse of that monopoly.
btw i never said they should be forced to provide to every medium
i have said they should have a right to prevent it from any medium
if you don't want to support a medium then someone else should have a right to step up under very specific limitations (no DIRECT income generation)
Quote:
|
On one other note I also think you are way off in thinking that eventually "fair use" laws will change in the way you want them. Almost all of the verdicts in cases and judgments made go against torrents, downloading and downloaders. Major torrent sites like Pirate Bay and Isohunt are hanging on by a string. If for no other reason, I say this because the big companies that make all this content have our lawmakers in their pockets. I think their will be law changes, but I think they will go just the opposite way you think they will.
|
it a sad day when your entire arguement for a free market is to have politicans deliberately break the free market
promote an inferior offering over a superior one because they have been bought by companies.
your talking about a fundamental perversion of capitalism.
i find it funny that a supposedly pro business person is trying to argue that position.