kane

The price going up has nothing (or very little) to do with piracy. Still, if you took out all of the discounted stuff that you are claiming causes the number of movies released to rise then what would the amount of sales be? Would they still be making record sales? Maybe they are doing this because they are trying to squeeze every penny out of what they have. Increased competition from the internet, games and other cable channels are causing things to be more competitive than ever before. So when you mix piracy in with all this increased competition it makes for the perfect storm.

Dirty Dane

No, the TNO paper you refered to. They conclude that "material" welfare is transfered to the consumer, and "cultural" welfare has increased. Now, is that a surprise for you? That's what socialism/piracy is all about.

I think you should also read their recommendations, especially this one:
Don’t ‘criminalise’ individual end users - educate them

I disagree when it comes to those scumbags making money of the infringements, but for the rest, education is surely needed. Didn't their mama not learn them not to steal? Didn't they learn that if everyone steal or not work, then there will be no one left to support each other?
Education is needed, and pro-piracy proganda on forums is not the way exactly...


There are many reasons, also complementary reasons, but the numbers do not prove what you try to say. Lets put it this way, quite simple: If you watched a movie.. or downloaded a site-rip - has the chances of you paying for it afterward improved? Answer me - honestly

Doh again. It's a no brainer that some legal ISP portal have license for the downloads they offer their customers - and torrent sites mostly not. Do you need research papers for that?


Social societies is not the same as socialism

And what do you mean by piracy is "working"? They are destroying everything artists, writers, yes even porn industry have been fighting for the hole time; free speech and freedoms. And then they have the nerves to whine about it afterwards? As I said, pirates are not "pirates" anymore - who at least can admit what they are doing is wrong.

dav3

wolverines!!!!!

__________________

TheDoc

uggg.. it's a cultural study, with the data in it.. you're getting stuck on details outside the subject... which is, piracy hurts sales, income, etc..

"The research shows that the economic implications of file sharing for welfare in the
Netherlands are strongly positive in the short and long terms. File sharing provides
consumers with access to a broad range of cultural products, which typically raises
welfare. Conversely, the practice is believed to result in a decline in sales of CDs,
DVDs and games."

Economic implications of file sharing, is positive in the short and long term. It doesn't hurt CD, DVD or game sales.

That's the point...


You aren't going to mass educate the population on what they call, sharing. We were taught to share, so things would really have to change.




If it's good, hell yeah, without question.

Even myself, kungfu, cartoons, music even on gfy... hell yeah.. I'm not afraid to spend money on things I like.. I am afraid to spend money on shit sold to me as good.

Just like the guy on gfy... canned off xbox for pirating a game but has $15k in games.


Huh? You assume torrents don't have legal content on them?

Hahaha... please.. People release music, even movies get released ONLY on torrents, everything.



Hahaha...... other than they have been praising it, other than bands have been releasing music on torrents.. writers have been sharing ideas pre-releasing books, then building massive followings, and selling out, without anyone printing the thing.


Wow... you really have no idea what's REALLY going on.

__________________

TheDoc

I feel if you removed all factors, piracy, internet.. Movie and Music sales would be in the total shit can. They would be looking like much of the failing industries around us that can't instantly tap into a world market, by mistake.

And I'm sure they are trying to squeeze every penny they can. But when you mix in all the competition, even the tiny guys... the market is EXTREMELY larger.. So do they just want more of the market they can't have... or is it actually hurting them?

They aren't hurting... they are fighting a change they can't win because of technology... even if it hits them now, they will catch up, again, at some point.

__________________

andrej_NDC

They increased the price and sold less tickets, whats wrong with that? When I increase the paysite price, I don't expect more sales either, but if it makes more money...

Also, as TheDoc mentioned, movie quality is so shitty lately, that I wonder people actually buy those movies instead of downloading them.

andrej_NDC

Another thing about piracy, many people just download movies to check them out and then buy them if they like them. If they didn't see them before, I doubt they would buy, too. They still prefer the DVD/blu-ray in an original plastic box over a burned avi file. Piracy is free advertising for movie companies.

Dirty Dane

Dammit, you claim pirates are paying MORE to the industry, which IS a question of material welfare (money) - NOT culture. They DEFINE material welfare as the TOTAL amount of money, AND they conclude the same material welfare is there, BUT it's transfered from operators/producers TO consumers. The cultural "increased" welfare is irrelevant.

I suggest you research and read references yourself, before calling other lazy


Yes, I have no problems with people sharing their own work or property, if they want to. But sharing your own work or property voluntary with others, is not the same as stealing FROM others. Haven't you learned the difference? Or did you learn: "if I want it - then I just take it"?


Yeah right...

Well, let me quote what the "community" said about the piratebay plan about becoming a paid model:

If the shareholders give the green light to the new plans, the Pirate Bay will be acquired on August 27. Whether or not any of the existing users will start to pay for the site is yet to be seen, but we estimate, based on talks with several Pirate Bay users, that the majority will wave goodbye and move on to the next torrent site.





Yeah, sorry I forgot you can't place it into context. I meant pirate torrents of course. Now, go to any pirate torrent sites top500 and tell me how much percentage is legal content



No, it looks like you have no idea, and I can now see, like Gideon, you are just trolling. First you quote the massive opposition against piracy, and now you suddenly say they praise it? I'm done with you. Go troll someone else. lol...

kane

I can't argue the fact that there are a lot of shitty movies being made, but I can blame some of that on less income and more piracy. As I stated above the big successful movies are the ones that pay for the smaller movies to be made. So the studios are always trying to hedge their bets and make things they think will sell. If it was a successful TV show, they think it will make a good movie and that it will already have a built in audience. This is why we see so many sequels and movies based on TV shows and video games and stuff like that. Of course a lot of those turn out to be crap, but they are trying to find sure things that will make money.

BluMedia

I didn't think City Walk was owned by MGM?

Mark

__________________
IntenseCash - If you can't convert us then you might want to look for a new job
.
BrokeStraightBoys.com converting 1:124 stats counted by Nats

dav3

__________________

TheDoc

Ok again... I took a random pick out of the top 5 results, and posted the statistics. Do your OWN research, rather than me just picking 5 random things from 1 google search result.



It's not for me to learn the difference on... the consumer doesn't think it's stealing, they call it sharing.

So go argue with the billion people that think differently than you.




Well... I put my content, our music, our pictures and art on torrents, forums, etc all the time. Of course people use it for piracy, every public service on the Internet has piracy on it, and it's big on all of them.


And I will wave goodbye to them too. Just like news services and forums that went paid. Statistically speaking, less than 2% of the people will pay it makes no difference what the service is.

It is after all, an 'extra' cost on top of the 'Internet' Cost on top of the Product Purchases that they make.

I said the Music/Movie "Industry" doesn't like it. Musicians and Artists, love it.. Those are two totally different things.



You can keep trying to twist the URL's I posted (or words) as "the facts" we are basing this off of all you want. When I have stated, this is 1 (or a few) examples of 10,000's of hours of research.

At the end of the day, you posting equals you not researching anything.... that's all I see.

__________________

kane

Just because a bunch of people considering "sharing" doesn't make it not piracy. A person can think robbing a bank is just "liberating" some money, it doesn't make it so.









Actually there are a lot of artists that hate it, but they don't speak out about it because they fear having the fans turn on them. There are also a lot that don't care. But in the end big rock stars like being big rock stars and they understand it is big music label money that helped them become big rock stars and without sales, those labels don't have the money to promote them and keep them big.

TheDoc

I simply stated what they say. By judging it, we lose out. We can't change the collective group, until technology changes it. Unfortunately but yet, oddly not at all unfortunate, technology is going more open, and this isn't going to help.



It comes down to, the people are telling the labels they want something different but labels say no, then try to tell the people what they want.

That has never worked.


The big business profiting from this, the real business people... which we know is happening, they took the word Piracy and replaced it with the word fans.

They want more fans, aka: eyeballs. And piracy is just 1 TINY part of the possible eyeballs. It's not like the Majority of the Internet pirates, that bands, music.

These people are looking at the overall... no mater how many ways you twist it, you can't saturate yourself.... so even thinking that Piracy hurts you, is impossible. Nobody has ever haven't reached even 1% of the possible market, even if your on every pirated site in the world.


This game... is way, way, way ... bigger than the minds here on gfy allow it to be.

__________________

kane

That is true. Rick Rubin was hired to be the new head of Columbia Records and the first thing he did was put together some focus groups where they asked a bunch of people age 15-25 how they got music. Almost every one of them said they downloaded without paying and they didn't consider it stealing. So the collective whole has decided if everyone breaks the law, then no worries, they will just change the law. I guess that is a sign of the times, but it worried him and it should worry anyone who creates content and sells it.





people actually love being told what to like. Why do you think half the garbage on TV gets watched. Do you think people would choose to watch this shit if they were of free will? No they are told it is funny or cool or interesting and they watch it. They like being told a band is good so they check it out. They like being told a movie is good so they should go watch it. There is a huge sector of the media that does nothing but write criticism of movies/music/TV shows and millions pay to be told what to watch and read and listen to.


Certainly any artist wants fans, but getting those fans costs money. Even if a ton of people download your album and there is a big demand for you to perform live you will have to have someone who is willing to finance your appearances. And those people will want something in return for investing in you. When you start to cut record sales out of the equation it makes the pie smaller, but there are still the same amount of people wanting a piece of it.

If you think that there is a glutton of garbage out there now to listen to and watch, wait until the masses have control of it. The day that Bob and his garage band have the same access to the same amount of ears and eyes as The Rolling Stones is the day we will be lost in a swirling mass of shit and finding anything worth listening to will become a part time job. Trust me, for several years I made my living writing about music. Every week I got no less than 40-50 CDs that record labels were releasing and they were hoping I would review them or write about the band. 90% of it was trash. And this is back pre-internet which means someone listened to it and thought it was good enough to invest money into and it was still terrible. Imagine what it will be like when anyone with $200 and a garage can release an album world wide.

The old saying is that you get what you pay for. Those that feel downloading music is not stealing and those that insist on doing it will eventually get exactly what they pay for which is nothing.

gideongallery

but you guys are bitching about how the current laws don't work

you want the torrent sites to proactively cover the cost of screening for infringement but when i suggested that copyright holders should be fined 3 times the claimed value of the work if their takedown request violates fair use or the actual copyright holders you complained that was to harsh

you expect torrent sites to spend hundreds of millions to absolutely determine if the work is authorized even though the record companies are making "mistakes"

like this
http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-dr...yspace-091007/

how exactly do you expect them to cover those cost if their is zero liability for lost profits when they make "mistakes" like this.

how do you expect any such site to survive.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

so we should thank the record company for screwing over the artist and making the choice for us

bullshit
the fact is there are proven examples of artist successfully launching themselves using peer to peer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Coulton
release all his work under creative common
he got his song featured in GH
he wrote and song the "i'm alive " song from portal.

without the record company taking 90% the fans who bought banana and bought the music from him, or asked him to play in their home town thru eventful more than made up for the "lost sales" from piracy.

maria digby covered other peoples songs on youtube

sick puppy gave their music away for free

i did the spike launch for project wyze that got them signed. and they made more money from that launch then they made for the album pushed by the mega corp that signed them.

we have been working with dozens of artist to do the same thing, small time success without the 90% ass raping is way easier to accomplish and will make you the same amount of money.

the fact is what you consider trash i might enjoy and vice versa, letting everyone make the decision for themselves is definately better then the record companies ass raping the artist so they can "tell us what to like"

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

BluMedia

omg best ever lol

__________________
IntenseCash - If you can't convert us then you might want to look for a new job
.
BrokeStraightBoys.com converting 1:124 stats counted by Nats

TheDoc

Understand... to me this isn't about supporting theft. It's just accepting reality on the issue at hand. At this point, I can't stop any form of piracy, not even my own shit.

The copyright law could change to support us, like in other Countries... and it isn't going to stop piracy from happening, it happens in every Country in the world, regardless of strict copyright/piracy laws.

The sign of the times to me is technology exploding faster than we can keep up.




Correct... but add in something for the changing times, open and private social aspects.

The tv and magazines are 'single direction conversations' once you add in the social aspects of the Internet, the 'global conversation' is telling people what is cool, what isn't, what is not and what is not.

Not only that.. the social connection, is allowing unattached social bonding. This would be like you thinking I was cool, so if I said "this" was cool, you would follow me.

Anyway... the social aspects is the altering technology now.



Interesting view point... let me know if you hear of someone growing big that can't get an investment for a concert, I have a few dollars laying around.


That day isn't here? Have you seen http://12seconds.tv/ ?? It's 12 sec video clips of people...

With what you said... I think the "challenge" that is now presenting itself comes from the social aspect of the change. Not every tom dick and harry can just walk in now and directly sell people trash.

They wouldn't ever make it past step 1... unless the person joins, the social conversation, engages in it, adds relevant and good content. All while, building the relationships with others in your industry, so you can have help reaching the global conversation, that is so big.. that if only one person yells out, nobody can hear it...

But if 100's or 1000's or millions of people are screaming it, supporting it... the global conversation can't ignore it.

Times are changing... that's for sure.

__________________

kane

We have been through all of this before. There are always exceptions to the rule. Many people argue that Dane Cook got huge because he was able to use Myspace as a way to get a ton of fans and he was able to turn those fans into people who bought his album and went to see him live. Tila Tequlia is another example of someone who made a lot of money just using Myspace and an online presence and it led to bigger things for her.

But when you remove the few exceptions most of these people are nothing more than glorified garage bands. I don't mean that in a bad way. There are small lesser known acts that I really like. There are bands that only put out 1 or 2 albums and never made it big, but I still love those albums. There are small underground acts that I really enjoy and yet they have never gotten big and most likely never will. This type of thing existed long before the internet.

What it comes down to is your ability to monetize your success while you have it. The half life of a band is about 5 years. Chances are if you haven't made it in 5 years, you won't. If you have made it, the odds of your success lasting more than 5 years is very limited. Times change, musical trends change and tastes and fads come and go. A few survive and most don't. It was that way before the internet, it is still that way wth the internet. If you go to a band and you tell them, "You can sign with a major label and they will ass rape you and you will never see a dime from record sales beyond your initial advance, but they will put a ton of money behind your publicity, you will have a couple of top 10 singles, work your ass off and within in year you will be headlining 3000-5000 seat venues and making millions on the road, or you can release the music yourself online, give it away for free and what you do sell you get to keep 90% of the profits from and in a few years you will still be playing clubs for 150-200 people and still holding a part time job when you aren't touring." Which do you think they would take?

I'm not saying the music labels are the be all end all. I'm not saying they have the best taste. I'm simply saying that when the music business becomes a free business where everyone releases their stuff for free and they hope to make money down the road touring, selling merchandise or whatever you are going to see a huge influx of people flooding the market with their stuff, and most of it is going to be garbage. There will be no filter and the consumer/fans will be left to sift through it on their own. Sure there will be magazines and web sites that will review it and help you find stuff you like, but most music buyers don't work that way. Most music buyers hear it on the radio and go buy it or download it. They don't have the interest in reading or researching stuff. Like always, there are exceptions to that rule and you and I are among those exceptions. But here is food for thought. Of the ten people that I consider to be close friends I am the only one who reads any kind of music magazines or websites. I am the only one of them that researches music and tries new stuff. The other nine all either hear it on the radio and buy it/download it or they just listen to something they already have. when I ask them why they don't look for something new that they might be into almost without fail they tell me it is because they have better things to do. Music, sadly, is an art of convenience and record labels help to facilitate that convenience for those who want it.

kane

If the social media conversation is so huge please give me one example of a musical artists that has become a large, worldwide known act simply off of social media and torrents. I don't mean someone like Gideon has pointed out that got a record deal or got some views on Youtube. I mean a musical act that sold out 3,000+ seat venues world wild.

I don't deny social media power, but it isn't everything that people make it out to be. Maybe that will change, maybe not.

My point in all of this (and I posted this in my response to gideon) is that music and to some extent TV and movies are an art of convenience. People hear it on the radio, like it and go buy it. People see a commercial for a show or a trailer for a movie and they think it looks good so they watch it. When that group of shows, bands, movies or whatever grows in size 1000 fold the job of sifting through it to find something you like will get much more difficult. Those shows/movies and musicians will have a much harder time attracting an audience and without that audience they will have trouble getting the money to produce a good show/movie or album.

I have said all along to everyone I know, if you like a TV show, watch it. Watch it when it is on. Don't Tivo it, don't download it, watch it. If the studio can't get enough viewers to make enough off the commercials they will cancel it no matter how good the show it. If you like a certain type of movie go see it, buy the DVD or rent the DVD when it comes out. If you don't support it, they will stop making it. If you like big action, big budget, big special effects movies, you better shell out the $10 for a ticket and go watch it. As more and more people download them it chews away at some of the profits and when those types of movies become unprofitable to make, they will stop making them. If you like a band, buy their CD and go see them when they come to town. If you don't support them, it doesn't matter how big of a fan of theirs you are. At some point every band has to decide if they want to continue traveling and recording and if they don't have the support they will just call it a career and get a normal job or go play back up for Miley Cyrus.

When you demand it free and you get it free eventually you will get what you pay for.

kane

You bring this guy up every time this argument comes up. The guy has carved a niche for himself out, but there are dozens of people who did similar things before he did this long before the internet ever existed so it's not just the gift of this technology that is responsible for his success.

Marie Digby signed with Hollywood Records which is owned by Disney.

Sick Puppy signed with Virgin records, one of the largest record labels on the planet.


I remember you talking about these guys and how they said they got made more money with you than the record label.

So if small success is so freaking fantastic why are all of the internet darlings who are reaping the benefits of 90% profits and total freedom not to mention world wide exposure they are getting on the internet racing to sign with major labels?

gideongallery

but the only way to stop that is to kill the technology

the independent artist who don't get a good record deal will release their stuff for free in the hopes of getting that fan base

every new established artist will have to compete against this free substitutions.

the established artist who took the ass raping and paid for their own branding out of their 10% to get access studio distribution will break away and do it themselves. (ala radio head)

the industry is trying to kill the technology and the alternatives that it produced.

cover songs were/are legitimate but the record companies are trying to classify them as stealing.

doing a unique cover by an unknow artist trying to promote herself



will no longer be a valid form of self promotion if the record companies get their way.

I for one like the cover better then the original, and the market would be denied that version if the record company get their way.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

I'm not saying kill the technology. I am saying make people responsible. Call me crazy, but asking people not to steal shouldn't be too big of a thing to ask. If an artist wants to control how their art is distributed, they should be allowed to do so. If they only want paying customers to have their music, they should be allowed that right.

Many torrent sites facilitate theft. It is that simple. You can shut down torrent sites that do this and still keep the technology alive.

You can make a gun and use it for law enforcement or to protect yourself, but you can also use it to rob someone. If you choose to use the gun to commit a crime you are punished for it, the same should go for those that choose to steal music/movies and those that facilitate that theft.

Now is where you give me the explanation of how the torrent sites aren't giving the product to the person and that each seeder is only giving a small piece of the product so they aren't breaking the law. It is all technicality bullshit that thieves are hiding behind. If I give you a bullet knowing you are going to put it in a gun and shoot someone, I didn't shoot them. I didn't drive you to the scene of the crime. I didn't give you the gun. I only contributed a tiny little piece of the puzzle but I still bear some of the responsibility.

gideongallery

marie digby was in development hell until she covered her way into a full record contract, it was the best she could do after signing the commitment letter

sick puppy had a similar problem, so arguing that it proves your point is not a valid arguement.


i was there when the reps were promising the guys all the stuff they could do i believed them too, that why i agreed that to help them get signed. I found out how much of a screw job the record companies do when they did stupid shit like replacing the seo html site with flash site that was pretty. Either they were totally clueless (which i doubt) or they wanted to cut the source of free traffic so the band would be dependent on chargable promotion services (which they controlled).

do you think they are taking the same screw job contract offers. record companies are giving exclusion for youtube and myspace /bit torrent so they get the best of both world, 10% of the market they can't reach, and 100% of the market they know how to establish.

You would be stupid not to take that kind of deal, because the 10% is free money.

granted there are still artist who get suckered into the lie that the record company way is the only way (your arguing that now btw) and will give them the complete control they want without any contract reversal points, but the smart artist are learning how to negotiate those points into the contract.

but that you reason the smart artist are negotating better deals leveraging their success to use the record companies to get free money they would not normally be able to get.

The stupid ones are suckered into believing the bullshit arguement you keep spouting as justification.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Your argument has all along been that record labels screw people over. You said it yourself in this post that you were at the table with the band when all this stuff was promised and they were screwed. Isn't that THEIR fault just as much as the record labels? Didn't they read the contract to see what they had control of and what the didn't have control of? If life was so good with out the record company why even bother listening to a record company?

These other artists might then be in the same situation. If you sign a contract, you sign a contact, you can't suddenly then just leave because you aren't happy.

Still, it doesn't change a thing. You rail against the record labels and talk about how fantastic torrent traffic is and how you can promote yourself and create a great career for yourself and keep 90% of the profits and make way more money than you could if you were on a record label, yet for some reason all of these internet people seem to end up at major labels. Life must not be as bad as you seem to think it is or these people realized that they can't get to where they want to be via the internet alone and went to where the real money is. How good or bad their contract turns out to be is all in their hands. If they are dumb enough to sign a bad contract why should I feel sorry for them?

gideongallery

but your solution to make them responsible is designed to kill the technology

if you don't make sure 100% (no safe harbor) that the content is authorized you get hit with 25k is statutory damages.

well there are examples of companies going to that extreme and it results in artist getting censored.

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-dr...yspace-091007/

That what the safe harbor is designed to protect

you keep saying it not a big deal and it can easily be done, but it just as hard to get absolute proof without making mistakes like this as to guarrentee that you never sell porn to minors (including when little jim steals his dad credit card).

let me ask you a question if laws were changed so that YOU got convicted for distributing porn to minors every time little jim abused your signup process (with his dads stolen credit card) how would you run your paysite.

Could you make money under that restriction

if the answer is no, you have proven the point i was making, the new restriction is designed to kill the technology.

right and walmart is partially responsible for every death because if they didn't sell the gun no one would have got shot. Going after the trackers who provide a techology (torrent) that can be used for both legitimate (timeshifting, back up recover etc) and illegitimate (piracy) is the same as going after walmart

mc hammer said it best

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

Here is what you do. If you want to run a torrent site you check with the copyright holders before you put a torrent to their product up. It is that simple. If the copyright holders give you permission to post their work and don't care who downloads it you put it up on the site. If they don't give you permission, you don't. Problem solved. This way if a band wants to put its album up online they can give every site in the world permission to have it on the site. If a movie studio doesn't want their movie on those sites they aren't put up.

It is apples and oranges. These torrent sites are making money by giving away stolen content. A minor getting his dads credit card and using it to join a porn site is a completely different thing. One is profiting off of copyright violation, the other is a person committing credit card fraud. If the world were different and you had to be 100% sure that every single person that ever visited your site was of age I would imagine there would be some way for that to be facilitated. But here we are now talking about free speech issues. It has been ruled that adults should be allowed to have access to adult material if they want it, so any law that prohibited their access would have to have some kind of system in place to allow age verification that was 100% accurate. In reality that could never happen unless you required every person to have a fingerprint scan or something crazy.

But again, these are two different things and you can't really compare the two. One is constitutionally protected form of free speech and the supreme court has even ruled that there are plenty of filters out there for those that want to block access from their kids and the other is a site that builds its business allow people to steal copyrighted material.



If I walk into Walmart and I say to the clerk I want to buy a shotgun and a box of shells because I am going to go home and shoot my wife and they sell me the gun and bullets and I go home and kill my wife you can bet your ass they will probably be sued.

They are not partially responsible for every death that occurs because most of their guns are sold under the understanding that they are going to be legally used. While a torrent site operates under the understanding that much of what it has on the site is being illegally download by people who have no right to take it. You can't deny that most of the users on torrent sites are taking stuff they have no rights to take. Hell you go to torrent freak and any time they post an article that is anti torrent news the users rail about how they will never pay for another thing and how they are proud to be pirates. They love the idea that they are taking all this and not paying for it.

gideongallery

couple of points

1. you keep ignoring all the examples i give you independents who made it without the label (JC for example)

2. many established artist who took it up the ass for years, are now trying to use the technology to break away but when every i mention them you argue they "owe" the record company for their success (as if taking it up the ass with the 90/10 split is not enough)

when eagles and other artist file copyright revokation notices to put their songs in the public domain so they can compete against the record companies selling their own music

you bitch about

when artist like radio head gift their music to their fans authorizing their downloading activities (hell their is an entire organization of some 250 major artist including the bare naked ladies who have made similar offers)

you bitch about.

the record companies signed the contracts that way, they knew the artist had a right put their music into the public domain by revoking the copyright, why should we feel sorry for them.



The new technology creates opportunities for the artist (who would have believed that an artist could make more money voiding their copyright and competing with everyone to sell their music) and the record companies are trying to change the LAWS and there for the conditions of the contract they agreed too. Technology usurped their power, and granted the artist a new opportunity and the record companies want to put the yoke back on the artist.


the arguement cuts both ways why should i feel sorry for them since the market has changed.

record companies can hold a band hostage to a deal for years, so while you claim that most artist keeping quiet are doing so because they don't want to piss off their fans (which should be considered a basic principle of marketing) i think they are keeping quiet because they are afraid of being stuck in development hell (think about if you were afraid of pissing of your fans, and you could make a pro filesharing statement get tons of good press and good will why would you be stupid enough to not make the statement)

The only established artist who make such statements have either sweetheart (my own studio does the production ) deals or are truely independent now.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

kane

And I point out that all of them (except for maybe that nerd rock guy, are all on major labels now. They used the internet to get signed to a major label. If their internet success was so fantastic why not just stay there.

My complaint has never been with artists who decide when their contracts are up to go their own way and dsitribute their music however they see fit. I actually give Radiohead credit. They could have gotten tens of millions in advance money from any number of record labels, but they decided they wanted to be independent. That is cool and it take courage.

All I have pointed out in the past is that these types of people are not good examples of the internet allowing success to happen for music acts. These acts are world famous. It is fame their earned during their time with the major labels when millions of dollars and enormous staffs of people were used to get them exposure. They now have that big name and they can capitalize on it if they want. They paid for it, if they want to go their own way, so be it. But you can't compare Radiohead to someone singing cover tunes on Youtube. One is a world wide famous band and the other is someone with some Youtube videos. The playing field is not fair nor is it balanced. Head to head Radiohead is going to destroy that person in downloads and no amount of keyword stuffing or seo will change that.


If you sign a contact you should have to stick to it. I have said it a million times and I will say it again and again and again and again. If it is a bad contract for either party, that is their fault. They entered that contract of their own free will, they have to deal with it.

There have been big names that have come out against file share. Kid Rock is one, Sheryl Crow is another. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers put out their last album Flea mad a statement saying how he was pissed off that the album was online and being illegally downloaded before it was even for sale. The very next day he went on MTV and said he mis-spoke and the doesn't care, feel free to download it. Why did he say that? Not because he was worried about development hell, because he didn't want backlash from the fans. There are a ton of artists who don't care one way or the other.

If an artist wants to use the new technology to market themselves, I don't care. All I want is for those who don't want their stuff downloaded in mass by anyone who wants it to have the ability to stop that.

gideongallery

you make it so simple so until you actually think about it
so i have to track down the copyright holder send them a letter wait month/years for a response and then only then put it up.

So say good bye to using torrent for timeshifting (who would wait months to see the episode of heroes they missed last night)

your solution guarrentees that technology can't be use for it actual legitimate purpose.




again as above, it not that much harder to do that type of check, call the guys home make sure he was the person who signed up. tell him it is being recorded so that if he disputes the charge it will be played in court for charges of fraud.

the kid will never pretend to be the father in that case.

oh wait that would basically put you out of business because everyone would be afraid to signup to such a site. (kill all impulse sales).


bullshit

fair use is a law granted right too, free speech also apply to things like parodies and commentaries. the copyright act never intended to make copyright exclusive rights to be an absolute monopoly, it was and has always been a conditional monopoly., those sites serve both the legitimate purpose (fair use) and the illegitimate purpose at the same time.

Going after the people who don't have a fair use right only fair solution.
Reclasifying the entire site as "allow(ing) people to steal coprighted material" just because some people use the site in that way is just plain bullshit.

name one torrent site that explictly says on their terms and conditions that they are there to steal copyright material

show me one torrent site where you have the ability to tell torrent site that you are putting up the torrent specifically to steal

You can't

your rationalizing your justification to keep a false analog.

Your analog justifies going after the murder who uses the gun to kill someone which is exactly what i am advocating when i keep saying
leave the seeder alone
leave the tracker alone
leave the leacher with fair use right alone
go after the leacher without fair use rights.

and trying to justify going after the tracker (walmart) by creating a situation which has no bases in reality at all.


50% of all torrent traffic is tv shows,

timeshifting is a right that was established some 24 years ago.

most of the movies on trackers are older aired on tv movies (again covered by timeshifting)

every seeder (50% of the transactions) can argue based on the technical specs that they are creating a back up

when i download heroes from the torrent sites i am timeshifing the show from monday to tuesday

when i seed dr who blink i do so with the intent of being able to get it back when i want to watch that episode again (backup and recovery)

add it content covered by piracy tax and authorized by the intrinsic conditions of a binding contract (offer acceptance and consideration) and a majority of torrents traffic are taking content they have a right to take.

The only way you can make the arguement is to ignore the fair use as a technicality that people are hiding behind.

Which by it very nature eliminates the legitimate use of the technology. IT denies me the ability to use torrents as the perfect pvr (infinite storage, never misses a show, never cut out becuase of power outages, always available).


you keep pointing to sites and argue that the vocal few represent the majority, bullshit
many people are just like me, using the torrents for what they should be used as timeshifting/back up and recovery.

Who don't take a single file that they have not bought a right too.

i don't condone either mistaken opinion

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

gideongallery

and again you are drawing an a +b = g conclusion

the examples i have given are those that publically available success stories.

that represent 1/10 of 1 percent of the "successes" specifically because you don't have to get anywhere near the exposure to eclipse the success of a major label push when you don't have to give away 97% (90/10 + cost comming out your end) of the money from your sales.



btw it two examples

for every 1 artist that make it thru the record system, 347 make lose money (record companies number used to justify the 90/10 screw job)

when i praised radio head for agreeing to testify on behalf of the college student accused of file sharing authorizing the behavor
you argued against it, with not fair to the label bullshit
and how they owed the label for their success and cutting the value of the catalog was unfair
but the contract allowed them to do that

are you reversing your statement



but changing the laws to deal with the new technology does change the contract for the record companies. They signed a contract which gave their artist gifting rights before such rights could authorize file sharing.


but your talking about putting restrictions that would eliminate all the fair use benefits of the technology

how many people do you think would have bought a vcr if you could never know if it would take your favorite show because the content producers would have to give permission before the recording could happen.

if those people had not bought the machine, the home viewing market would never exist (biggest money maker for the movie industry).

kill the traffic generated from the fair use uses and you kill the marketing benefit of the technology too.

__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

GatorB

Hey Einstien box office is higher because tickets cost more. Try looking at the site and see TICKETS sold. They peaked in 2002 when 1.575 billion tickets were sold. Number has been going down steadily and in 2008 only 1.341 billion were sold. That's the lowest amount since 1996.

The actors salaries is a SMALL % of a movies cost and if less movies get made it isn't the Hollywood millionaires you despise that are going to be hurting financially it's thousands of regular joes that work behind the scenes that don't get paid millions that are going to get hurt. But I suppose you think movies make themselves as if by magic. Also just because a movies makes $400 million doesn't mean the studios makes that much. The studios split the money with the movie theaters.Now you'd think a movie like Transformers 2 which made $400 mil actually made lots of money for the studio, well not really. First of all it cost $200 mil to make. Then you typically add in 15% for promotion so that's $230 mil. Now is made $402 million in the US. Studio gets half, so that's $201 million. So actually in the US that movie LOST $29 million If it wasn't for foreign box office the movie wouldn't have made ANY money.

GatorB

That's a load of crap and you know it. Recording a TV on your DVR is TOTALLY different than sharing it on a torrent site. Your "right" to time shift doesn't give you a right to share that content. By the way ther are 2 great site to watch Heroes online LEGALLY they are called Hulu.com and NBC.com. If you want a copy to keep and you don't have a DVR or whatever then you pay purchase a comercial free digital copy from many places including amazon, itunes, XBL and PSN for $2, $3 for HD. Or you can go to wally world and buy the DVD of the whole season.

ZERO excuse to go to a torrent site.

TheDoc

To be fair... we have peaks and valleys going all the way back to 1980.. just because they are down a little for a few years, means nothing.

2009, we already beat last year, we already passed 1996, and are on par to beat the previous 5 years... end of the year releases will make or break it.

The number of increased releases is re-released shows, even only showing in one theater, it's marked as a release. The growth in $1 theaters, those are releases that make far less average income and really add to the numbers of off crap movies to watch.

__________________

GatorB

As you stated WOW can't be pirated and you have to pay for subscription kind of explains why it's not hurting. Also games systems like the PS3 and XBOX 360 are basically hack proof. Sure you could mod your system to play illegal games then look what happens, MS kicked off a million XBL users. Now those people are forced to buy new consoles. Hollywood and the music industry doesn't have that option of rendering your TV, DVR computer, MP3 players useless for using pirated material.

DamianJ

Wow. The US must be way cool if they can track every TV in the land and figure out accurate viewing figures!

I always thought you guys used Neilson boxes to do viewership of a tv show, which is a tiny teeny sample. Boy do I feel stupid not knowing about this amazing technology.

Do you have a link to it, because all I can find about how viewing numbers work in the States is about Neilson. How wak and out of date!

DamianJ

But...as more movies were made, then surely the regular joes you mention are getting more work?

Or are these other movies being made done by magic?

GatorB

REALLY?

Tickets sold in millions

2009 1,239.3
2008 1,341.3
2007 1,404.6
2006 1,406.0
2005 1,379.2
2004 1,510.5

1996 1,338.6

I find it ironic how many people use the excuse that a movie is "crap" as a reason to pirate it. Ok if it's "crap" why would one want to watch it in the first place? Because you got it for free? If I gave you a plate of dog shit would you eat it as long as I said it was free? Of course not. If you want to watch a movie and especially if you want to own it then you just gave it VALUE. Since it has VALUE then it's worth PAYING for.

DamianJ

They tried. But consumers told them to fuck off.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-255144.html

And do you remember the Trusted Platform Module?

TheDoc

Yeah really... from the MPAA directly..

Tickets Sold (billion) (1995) 1.22 1.26 1.42 1.44 1.44 1.39 1.44 1.58 1.55 1.49 1.40 1.41 1.40 1.37 1.38 (2009)


You're an entire page late.. go back to page 2 and catch up.


I'm sorry... I said it was okay to pirate crap movies? Could you quote me on that?

I was showing why more releases have taken place and the money hasn't grown that much for them, or the viewings. Because, they are crap, by the studio standard... thus they can sell them for $1.

Nobody said shit about pirating anything.

__________________

DamianJ

This back and forth is pointless. You guys will never alter the other's opinion.

So, how about we turn this into what COULD be done?

Obviously you can't stop copyright infringement.

So how can you make your content uninfringable?

a) live services. One of my clients is a UK TV station. They make free to air live softcore tv shows. (yes you can get free boobies on the telly in England). The money is made from guys ringing up to talk to the onscreen girls. This interaction is not possible to pirate. (We will be launching a hard online stream of the girls you can use as a free members' area plugin for US sites with a freefone US number to call in on next week!).

b) Tangible goods. With the site membership you get x tangible good that is again not pirateable. Limited edition. Etc. Could be as simple as personally signed pair of panties included in site membership.

Anyone else got any positive suggestions, given that we all know you can't stop people sharing your content.

GatorB

If you understood even the basics of statistics you'd understand you don't need a HUGE sample to get accurate stats. For example a CNN exit poll of 18,000 voters in the 2008 election showed that 53% of the people responding voted for Obama. Overall Obama won 53% of the vote. Hmmm. Funny how just 18,000 votes exactly predicted the results of 125 million votes. That's 1/7 of 1%

GatorB

That's why I said they don't have that option. With games systems it's closed system. They can do what they want.

TheDoc

Do you actually read the topics at hand before you post?


Your post, is not related to the quote or the quoted, quote... at all.

__________________

GatorB

Fuck you I'm not reading through all those posts. I do WTF I want.


I never said YOU said that. I was speaking in generalities. People DO in fact use that excuse. That's the gist. Next time quit thinking everything is about YOU. YOU are not the topic of this thread. Sorry if that offends you.

GatorB

Back to the ignore list for you. So next time you'll be posting to yourself. Good luck loser.

TheDoc

Oh... I thought you said, You to me....

__________________

TheDoc

Oh did Daddy hurt your little feelings? Hahahahaha...

__________________

GatorB

If it's all garbage why are people pirating movies? Would you take dirty diapers out of someone's trash can just because you can get them for free? Of course not.