Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Here is my final word on this.
First, There is no damage being done to people or industries if a person has to wait a few months to see a movie on DVD or pay-per-view. This does not stifle technology. You can still build all the high end A/V gear you want because there is a ton of existing content out there and more growing every day.
|
that a bullshit arguement, because unless the content is filmed in that new format it will never get traction
as long as copyright holders are allowed to extend monopoly thru medium selection they can make the same amount of profit without investing in the new technology.
think about it logically would you spend an extra 100k on equipment which films content in 6 spectrum color if no theaters were capable of showing in 6 spectrum color
hell no.
would a theater spend the pennies they have left upgrading the theaters to to support 6 spectrum color if they know people are going to be forced to choose between not watching it at all or watching it in their medium only
hell no
that stifling only exists because the copyright monopoly was extended.
Quote:
|
I would even argue that there is more money made by having to wait. If a movie does well at the boxoffice it will sell more copies of the DVD and the more copies of the DVD that get sold the more money is spent on shipping, packaging, manufacturing, buying it at your local store etc.
|
except it still smaller then the number of jobs created for hard good technological advance
people don't repair 10 dvd
but they do repair 999 vcr (original price of the vcr)
Quote:
|
I have never said that they should stop technology. I have always said that I think the artists those who create their own content should have control over how it is distributed. If I make a movie it is mine. I own it. I paid to create it and I should have the right to sell it as I wish.
|
you can't seperate the two, the consequence of letting the artist control the medium and not just the distribution has the automatic effect of stopping the technology.
your right to monopolistically control the DISTRIBUTION was only given to you because you agreed to respect fair use.
this bullshit i should have a right to sell it as i wish is an attempt to go back on that agreement
if you wish the monopolisitic control then you ahve to agree to the fair use period
you have no right to take the benefit and refuse to accept the responsiblity.
the two go hand in hand.
respecting access shifting is selling it as you wish because you traded away that respect for the monopolistic control of distribution.
Quote:
|
If gas companies decided to do as you say only sell premium during the first week of the month, people would be out in the streets protesting and it wouldn't take long before the companies caved to their demands and started selling all the different grades of gas again. But here is the difference. Gas is something that most people need to get by in their day to day life. Movies are not. One is something that is vital to the average person being able to provide for themselves. The other is not. One is simply art. One is entertainment. If people protested in the streets demanding that movies be released in all formats the day they are released you might actually see some studios cave in and do that. But people don't riot in the streets because most of them don't care. Most of them understand that if they don't want to pay to see it in the theater they can wait a few months and rent it on DVD or pay-per-view. They don't see it as some life or death struggle like you do.
|
what do you think using the pirate bay to access shift the movie is
the the protest within the context of the medium
Quote:
|
The movie industry isn't using a monopoly to prop up and sell an inferior product. They are simply marketing their product in a way that they think will allow them to best maximize their profits and you - a guy who goes off about the free market - want the government to step in and force them to do it your way.
|
i don't want the laws changed you do
i think they are fine the way they are
i want the courts to rule under the current laws
the courts not the government would establish access shifting
they would do so based on the logical arguement i have made, that distribution income is still 100% protected even if right to sue people who extend the distribution to unsupported mediums was eliminated.
the market driven "forcing" them to support all mediums fairly and equally would NOT hurt the copyright monopoly protected profits
it would simply eliminate the profits generated by ABUSING the monopoly.
Quote:
|
If the market really demanded access shifting and every movie available in every format the day it was released, they would have it. But most people don't care. Most people have better things to do than sit around and figure out how to get something for free off the internet and use loopholes in age old laws to justify it.
|
if that were true they would be no need to sue any of the torrent sites or downloaders
problem solved leave them alone.
because their such a tiny small minority they are not going to matter
the problem you have is that the numbers are there
they are revolting against the abuse, and rather then recognize it and adapt to it
the copyright holders are suing to stop it.
Quote:
|
Access shifting is not effecting technological development. We have 3D TV's now, we are starting to see the RGBY TV's now. Companies can create all the A/V gear they want and sell it like made and create this 60 trillion/year industry you have swimming in your head right now. Nobody is stopping them.
|
you know this statement is total bullshit.
every technological advancement goes thru three cycles early adopters/ market leaders / mass consumer
the problem is the price point of the early adopters
if the early adopters come in at 100k mark then their adoption drops the price quickly to something that the market leaders will accept
in every case the technology perculated down quickly if you could get a high price point early adopters
compare the difference between how quickly dolby surround sound entered the home market
vs 3d entering the home market and you can see the adverse effect of cutting out the high point early adopters out of the technological cycle.
read up a bit on real 3d
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopic
instead of the crappy you got to wear glass bullshit we are currently experiencing
Lenticular lens was invented in the 1980
and we still don't have movies filmed in this medium
we still don't have theaters with projection equipement capable of show this stuff.
if the rate of adoption was as fast as surround sound (one that had the theaters acting as the early adopters)
we would already have this in our homes.
Quote:
|
The fact that a movie comes out this weekend at the theater, but not for another 3 months on DVD is not holding them back. Like everything else these advances are consumer driven. Until the price becomes reasonable not a whole lot of people will buy it. As the price drops it will become more and more commonplace, but the fact that you have to wait for a movie on DVD is not restricting the development of this technology.
|
if the adoption rate of technology was as fast as surround sound
if the price drop from the theater level cost to the home cost
we should have autostereoscopy tv in our homes NOW
we don't
Quote:
The only way forced access shifting as you envision it will ever happen in the US is if our lawmakers create a law forcing these companies to do this or, if someone gets in trouble for downloading and challenges the law and wins their case then that case survives all the appeals and sets a legal precedent. Neither of those is going to be happening any time soon.
More likely is that the movie companies will slowly start to release more product online test these markets out to see if they can make as much money as the traditional system. If they try it and it works, you might see more of it voluntarily, but it isn't going to happen any time soon.
|
actually mostly likely is the movie industry will try and change the laws to make it illegal even if it would have been ruled to be fair use under the current laws.
That the point i am making i don't want the laws changes. I want access shifting to have a fair fighting chance to exist.
let the courts decide don't bribe politicians to change the laws to corrupt the free market system, it fine the way it is.