US Government Told Piracy Losses Are Exaggerated

[gideongallery]

At a hearing yesterday, several experts told the US International Trade Commission that many of the estimates of piracy losses touted by the entertainment industries were inflated or misleading. Others claimed that current enforcement methods aren?t working and suggested they try something else.

http://torrentfreak.com/us-governmen...erated-100616/

that companies should start thinking about the long-term. It?s advice that the industries would be wise to follow, as every past copyright conflict has, despite a short-term loss, provided massive long-term benefits and growth for the affected industries.

the best part of the testimony was professor chow, not only because he said what i have been saying here for years
but because he actually backed it up with hard numbers unlike the wishy washy "potential lost sales"

[Alky]

I'd still like to know how that studio who did The Hurt Locker put the $2,500 price tag on downloading the movie.

I didn't know you can just make up numbers out of thin air and sue people.

[trevesty]

Originally Posted by Alky

I'd still like to know how that studio who did The Hurt Locker put the $2,500 price tag on downloading the movie.

I didn't know you can just make up numbers out of thin air and sue people.

Of course you can. The producer is acting as if most of the people he'll serve with papers doesn't have the $ to fight with the "big boys" in court.

I have a feeling he's going to find a couple of college kids whose daddies have some pretty deep pockets.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by Alky

I'd still like to know how that studio who did The Hurt Locker put the $2,500 price tag on downloading the movie.

I didn't know you can just make up numbers out of thin air and sue people.

2500? price jumping every day

[Agent 488]

who cares.

[VHNet]

Get rid of piracy? Release movies On Demand same day as they come out in theaters. Problem solved.

[Klen]

Huh i think this is first thread where i actually agree with gg.They have been exaggerating since ages,for example when they shutdown some small unknown warez site and claim how they lost millions because of it.Like all those down loaders would buy software otherwise.

[TheDoc]

Aye, been reading about the crap MPAA numbers for years on torrent freak as well..

The MPAA has been blowing the number god for years now.. It's simply crazy to try and say 1000 torrent downloads is equal to losing 1000 x $10 a movie ticket or so. That's just one gay way they try and fake the numbers.

If the MPAA would put all this energy into moving towards new technologies they would have beaten piracy already.

[kane]

Originally Posted by VHNet

Get rid of piracy? Release movies On Demand same day as they come out in theaters. Problem solved.

While this would fix some of it, I personally don't think it would make a very big dent in the problm. The reason I say that is because many of the people who download just want it for free. They don't care if it is available for them to buy or not, they don't want to pay. If you go on Torrentfreak and you read the comments on any article that talks about a ruling/event taking place that is anti-pirating and you will see dozens, if not hundreds, of people posting there about how they will never pay for anything. They rail against the producers of movies and music and say that the big companies are too greedy and need to brought down and how they are pirates for life. These people don't care if it is available for them to buy, they are just going to take it anyway.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by kane

While this would fix some of it, I personally don't think it would make a very big dent in the problm. The reason I say that is because many of the people who download just want it for free. They don't care if it is available for them to buy or not, they don't want to pay. If you go on Torrentfreak and you read the comments on any article that talks about a ruling/event taking place that is anti-pirating and you will see dozens, if not hundreds, of people posting there about how they will never pay for anything. They rail against the producers of movies and music and say that the big companies are too greedy and need to brought down and how they are pirates for life. These people don't care if it is available for them to buy, they are just going to take it anyway.

---and they only take digital stuff because THEY CAN.

If the sneaker industry was viewed as some out of control greed monster, you wouldn't see them running into Foot Locker and carrying armfuls of Reeboks down the street, because the cops would throw them in jail.

They're not oppressed by the man, trying to create a new paradigm. They're assholes, and have probably never created anything -- so they put no value in anything that is created by someone else.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by bronco67

---and they only take digital stuff because THEY CAN.

If the sneaker industry was viewed as some out of control greed monster, you wouldn't see them running into Foot Locker and carrying armfuls of Reeboks down the street, because the cops would throw them in jail.

They're not oppressed by the man, trying to create a new paradigm. They're assholes, and have probably never created anything -- so they put no value in anything that is created by someone else.

The point is... they wouldn't have paid either way. Before piracy, they copied movies from fiends, did movie exchanges and trades. No new movies, no theaters, nothing but another way to pirate.

Piracy isn't stealing, if you make a copy of something for your own personal use, you're not going to jail for it.

[L-Pink]

Stealing is stealing, a thief is a thief. It is illegal, period.

When stealing is legal let me know I hate buying groceries.


.

[kane]

Originally Posted by bronco67

---and they only take digital stuff because THEY CAN.

If the sneaker industry was viewed as some out of control greed monster, you wouldn't see them running into Foot Locker and carrying armfuls of Reeboks down the street, because the cops would throw them in jail.

They're not oppressed by the man, trying to create a new paradigm. They're assholes, and have probably never created anything -- so they put no value in anything that is created by someone else.

I agree. They take it because it is easy to get and the chances of ever getting into any kind of trouble are tiny.

[ProG]

Anyone remember how much of a pain in the ass it was to make copies of VHS tapes? Man I'm glad those days are over

[ReGGs]

Piracy will not end. The best way to combat it without directly suing people is to provide new content delivery systems that make stealing seem like more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Example: Netflix instant streaming.

[BestXXXPorn]

Great writeup with some actual logical information being presented. Thanks for the link

[kane]

Originally Posted by ReGGs

Piracy will not end. The best way to combat it without directly suing people is to provide new content delivery systems that make stealing seem like more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Example: Netflix instant streaming.

This is a good point. A few years ago downloading movies and music was kind of a pain in the ass. You had to have at least some basic knowledge and then know where to look to get it. These days it is very easy and anyone who can fog up a mirror while they breathe can figure it out. There is not real boundary to keep people away from it.

Offering a cheap, easy to use streaming service could help combat some of that. Especially with them now allowing you to use a wide range of devices to stream right to your TV. If you can spent a few dollars a month and get access to a ton of content there might be some people who would rather do that than take the time to find and download stuff.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The point is... they wouldn't have paid either way.

True dat.

It is like Repub/Dems wasting their time and money trying to 'convert' one site to the other. It isn't going to happen, election or otherwise. They simply need to concentrate their time and money on things that they CAN CHANGE.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

While this would fix some of it, I personally don't think it would make a very big dent in the problm. The reason I say that is because many of the people who download just want it for free. They don't care if it is available for them to buy or not, they don't want to pay. If you go on Torrentfreak and you read the comments on any article that talks about a ruling/event taking place that is anti-pirating and you will see dozens, if not hundreds, of people posting there about how they will never pay for anything. They rail against the producers of movies and music and say that the big companies are too greedy and need to brought down and how they are pirates for life. These people don't care if it is available for them to buy, they are just going to take it anyway.

you missed the point if access shifting was a fair use right
and the movie was released on every medium at the same time
the freebie people could still get it free on the commercial tv station

the dvd/ondemand/movie theater/commercial tv/ release would happen on the same day

no profits from extending the copyright monopoly to medium

but 100% of the content distribution profits would still go to copyright holder.

Which is what the law has always intended anyway.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Stealing is stealing, a thief is a thief. It is illegal, period.

When stealing is legal let me know I hate buying groceries.


.

Stealing equals jail, fine, community service, etc. It's an actual crime.

Digital Piracy isn't criminal.. now it is criminal to profit on copyrighted items, knowingly stealing and duplicating and selling it as the org... but these guys aren't profiting from it or doing that.

What they do won't land them in jail or even get them fined. It's not illegal. Now they could be sued, but that's very different.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you missed the point if access shifting was a fair use right
and the movie was released on every medium at the same time
the freebie people could still get it free on the commercial tv station

the dvd/ondemand/movie theater/commercial tv/ release would happen on the same day

no profits from extending the copyright monopoly to medium

but 100% of the content distribution profits would still go to copyright holder.

Which is what the law has always intended anyway.

For starters a movie that just gets released in the theater will never be released simultaneously on free TV. Not going to happen. There is no way a movie studio is going to spend 200 million dollars making a movie only to give it away on TV.

If they released it simultaneously on DVD/pay-per-view/pay per download etc all at once it might cut some of it down, but I still think there are still a lot of people out there who would still not pay because they simply don't want to and think they are entitled to have it for free.

If it were released in pay-per-view/DVD/paid download at the same time it were released in the theater just about everyone would have access to buy it in some way shape or form, but there would still be a lot of people who wouldn't.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

http://torrentfreak.com/us-governmen...erated-100616/



the best part of the testimony was professor chow, not only because he said what i have been saying here for years
but because he actually backed it up with hard numbers unlike the wishy washy "potential lost sales"

Congrats on finding a handful of idiots just like youself to back up dumb shit! Woot Woot!

[sortie]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Stealing equals jail, fine, community service, etc. It's an actual crime.

Speeding ticket does not mean jail or community service.
Now go ahead and fuck up by not paying the fine or obeying a court order.

In other words, put up content and get sued and have a judge tell you to
take it down and ignore that.

Copyright violation in most states is a civil offense, but give it another 10-20 years.
There will be many studies done on the effects of the internet during this time and
the result will be that piracy crippled too many enterprises.
Those facts may be the cause to make it a criminal offense.
It's already is criminal in some places :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...minal_offences

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by sortie

Speeding ticket does not mean jail or community service.
Now go ahead and fuck up by not paying the fine or obeying a court order.

In other words, put up content and get sued and have a judge tell you to
take it down and ignore that.

Copyright violation in most states is a civil offense, but give it another 10-20 years.
There will be many studies done on the effects of the internet during this time and
the result will be that piracy crippled too many enterprises.
Those facts may be the cause to make it a criminal offense.
It's already is criminal in some places :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...minal_offences

We aren't talking about not following court orders... that's illegal even if he tells you to jump out the window.

The copyright laws will change, but not the direction you think... Fair use, "IS" the American Economy and technology/software and digital goods aren't slowing down.

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ccia-fair-...-exec-summ.pdf

"Revenue - In 2006, fair use industries generated revenue of $4.5 trillion, a 31 percent
increase over 2002 revenue of $3.5 trillion. In percentage terms, the most significant
growth occurred in electronic shopping, audio and video equipment manufacturing,
Internet publishing and broadcasting, Internet service providers and web search portals,
and other information services.

Value Added - Value added equals a firm’s total output minus its purchases of
intermediate inputs and is the best measurement of an industry’s economic contribution
to national GDP. In 2006, fair use-related industry value added was $2.2 trillion, 16.6
percent of total U.S. current dollar GDP.

Fair use industries also grew at a faster pace than the overall economy. From 2002 to
2006, the fair use industries contributed $507 billion to U.S. GDP growth, accounting for
18.3 percent of U.S. current dollar economic growth."

No way Copyright, fair use, or piracy rules are going to change.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

For starters a movie that just gets released in the theater will never be released simultaneously on free TV. Not going to happen.

you do realize that tv stations PAY for the right to show a movie

they are not giving away anything on tv.

There is no way a movie studio is going to spend 200 million dollars making a movie only to give it away on TV.

tv stations would never have created ondemand if the vcr had not forced them to compete either. The fact is they made way more money forcing people to watch the re-run with all the commercials included.

A new fair use needs to be created to stop that abuse, once that happens movie producers will produce content that allows theaters to compete on a technological basis.
RGBY filmed content which will look superior to anything you can see on your RGB tv at home.

the technology would perculate down to the tv over time, and 60 trillion dollar / year (assuming the adoption speed of surround sound is consistent with the new technologies that come down the pike) of new technology would replace 350 million lost due to "piracy".

Even if you were assuming that the fabricated piracy numbers currently declared by the MPAA is correct that a win for the US economy.

If they released it simultaneously on DVD/pay-per-view/pay per download etc all at once it might cut some of it down, but I still think there are still a lot of people out there who would still not pay because they simply don't want to and think they are entitled to have it for free.

If it were released in pay-per-view/DVD/paid download at the same time it were released in the theater just about everyone would have access to buy it in some way shape or form, but there would still be a lot of people who wouldn't.

but that would still not be a fair use friendly solution, all mediums would have to get the movie at the same time, and that would include commercial tv.

if access shifting were to come about, then the act of ignoring a medium would entitle someone who wanted to fill that need to fill that need.

That would be a good thing (60 trillion dollar a year in new technology).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by sortie

Congrats on finding a handful of idiots just like youself to back up dumb shit! Woot Woot!

wow so independent professors of economics are now idiots because they don't blindly agree with bogus and unsubstantiated claims.

i thought your absurd statements about the minimum wage were bad.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize that tv stations PAY for the right to show a movie

they are not giving away anything on tv.

What I meant is that they are giving it away to the viewer. How much do you think the studios would want from TV networks to show a movie like Avatar or Iron Man 2 on free TV? The amount they would demand in payment would be so high that the commercials would have cost as much ore more than super bowl commercials.

Not to mention they would have to edit the movie for content if it rated above PG. Some might say that is a selling point, if you want the unedited version you can pay for it, but I don't think TV stations are going to want to pay a premium price for content that is edited and available still in theaters.

As I said, this is never going to happen. First run movies will never be available on free TV on the same day they are released in theaters.

tv stations would never have created ondemand if the vcr had not forced them to compete either. The fact is they made way more money forcing people to watch the re-run with all the commercials included.

I would say Tivo and DVRs forced cable companies to ramp up their on demand services. The VCR can record one show at a time and is not terribly easy to use. The DVR and Tivo are a breeze to use and many of them you can record more than one show at a time.

Broadcast TV stations might have made more by forcing you to watch reruns, but companies like HBO, Showtime and other premium pay services actually make more money with On Demand because it allows subscribers to watch the show whenever they want. For them it is different than regular TV because there are no advertisers to make happy, they just want people to keep paying the $15 a month for their channels.

A new fair use needs to be created to stop that abuse, once that happens movie producers will produce content that allows theaters to compete on a technological basis.
RGBY filmed content which will look superior to anything you can see on your RGB tv at home.

the technology would perculate down to the tv over time, and 60 trillion dollar / year (assuming the adoption speed of surround sound is consistent with the new technologies that come down the pike) of new technology would replace 350 million lost due to "piracy".

Even if you were assuming that the fabricated piracy numbers currently declared by the MPAA is correct that a win for the US economy.

Where do you get this 60 trillion dollar number? Are you saying that simply selling new technology to the consumer will add 60 trillion/ year to the US economy?

You can have all the best equipment in the world and it won't stop people from downloading a movie for free. Many people who have the money to spend on high end AV gear want media that allows them to take advantage of it. They will pay for Blu Ray or for HD pay per view etc. This has no effect on the guy who has a normal TV and no surround sound who wants to download a copy of Iron Man 2 because he doesn't want to pay for it.

Even if knew technology sales helped cover the cost of piracy losses they are often two different companies. Panasonic selling more TV's doesn't help Paramount recoup losses due to downloading.

but that would still not be a fair use friendly solution, all mediums would have to get the movie at the same time, and that would include commercial tv.

if access shifting were to come about, then the act of ignoring a medium would entitle someone who wanted to fill that need to fill that need.

That would be a good thing (60 trillion dollar a year in new technology).

Let me make sure I have this correct. You are saying that if a company releases their movie in theaters, on pay-per-view, on DVD and on pay per download, but not on free TV then those who wanted it on free TV should be allowed to just download it for free because their fair use rights would be violated and somehow allows this to happen is going to create 60 trillion/year in new income.

Please explain.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by VHNet

Get rid of piracy? Release movies On Demand same day as they come out in theaters. Problem solved.

That makes too much sense. Hollywood is afraid if it's onDemand you'll go to the theater less. truth is some people LOVE the theater experience and will always go. Some like me RARELY go nowadays. Making me wait a few months isn't going to change that. Hasn't so far. Less ethical people that are like me when it comes to going to the movies will just download it from a torrent so why not make some money off of them?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

What I meant is that they are giving it away to the viewer. How much do you think the studios would want from TV networks to show a movie like Avatar or Iron Man 2 on free TV? The amount they would demand in payment would be so high that the commercials would have cost as much ore more than super bowl commercials.

Not to mention they would have to edit the movie for content if it rated above PG. Some might say that is a selling point, if you want the unedited version you can pay for it, but I don't think TV stations are going to want to pay a premium price for content that is edited and available still in theaters.


As I said, this is never going to happen. First run movies will never be available on free TV on the same day they are released in theaters.

think about for a second if access shifting becomes a fair use right
then preventing it from being release on a medium would be just as legitimate at trying to prevent sony from making vcrs.

The act of charging insane liciencing fees for tv distribution would allow the tv stations to air the content for free.

They will make their money back from product placement/ etc.

really big movies like iron man will not have a problem,
the theaters would have it in 3d and be able to charge $20

the tv appearance would be an upsell to the "real" experience in the theater it would not be that hard to do if the theaters were a true technologically superior offering of the movie.

I would say Tivo and DVRs forced cable companies to ramp up their on demand services. The VCR can record one show at a time and is not terribly easy to use. The DVR and Tivo are a breeze to use and many of them you can record more than one show at a time.

tivo and dvr are simply direvations of the original vcr
if the timeshifting fair use had never been established then these devices would not have been legal either.

Broadcast TV stations might have made more by forcing you to watch reruns, but companies like HBO, Showtime and other premium pay services actually make more money with On Demand because it allows subscribers to watch the show whenever they want. For them it is different than regular TV because there are no advertisers to make happy, they just want people to keep paying the $15 a month for their channels.

and how likely do you think any of those stations would exist if the viewing hours were limited to original broadcast and reruns

people watching their favorite shows at non prime time times is what made the tv stations realize there was more programing time available

ever increasing viewing times cause specialty channels to be created.

Where do you get this 60 trillion dollar number? Are you saying that simply selling new technology to the consumer will add 60 trillion/ year to the US economy?

You can have all the best equipment in the world and it won't stop people from downloading a movie for free. Many people who have the money to spend on high end AV gear want media that allows them to take advantage of it. They will pay for Blu Ray or for HD pay per view etc. This has no effect on the guy who has a normal TV and no surround sound who wants to download a copy of Iron Man 2 because he doesn't want to pay for it.

when dolby surround sound first hit the market it only existed in the movie theater
home sound systems did not exist

movies needed special equipment to record /edit the multi channel sound signal

you need to use editing software and equipement to downgrade multichannel signal into the single /stereo channel signal most people actually had

that technology existed only in the movies and as cost came down it appeared in the home market, bringing new sales for the content producers (dvd,Blue ray, etc)

same would happen in the case of access shifting

Even if knew technology sales helped cover the cost of piracy losses they are often two different companies. Panasonic selling more TV's doesn't help Paramount recoup losses due to downloading.

paramount is not entitled to money from the sale of panasonic tv etc just because they produced the content

just like universal was not entitled to the profits from the sale of the vcr

paramount would earn it profits from medium distribution of the content just like universal earned money from putting their movies on the tape cassette and selling it to the owners of the vcr.

Let me make sure I have this correct. You are saying that if a company releases their movie in theaters, on pay-per-view, on DVD and on pay per download, but not on free TV then those who wanted it on free TV should be allowed to just download it for free because their fair use rights would be violated and somehow allows this to happen is going to create 60 trillion/year in new income.

Please explain.

those that adapt to the new market condition
shoot in six spectrum 8 bit color and downgrade their content to the lower mediums will survive

those that hang on to the old 3 spectrum 8 bit color will die

competition will breed the new income (see above).

if theaters had 2^ 48 colors while regular tv only had 2^24 and the content was actually shot in 2^48 and downgraded to regular tv viewing

you would have amazing effects in the theater that would

1. would make it worth while to go to the theater even if the content was released at the same time on other mediums
2. technologically impossible to duplicate with "cheap" recording devices

short term profits would drop as people would not want to see movies that are only marginally better because 256R256G was replaced with 256Y256Y

but when the content is filmed in 6 spectrum color then you would add all the combinations of true yellow with all the other colors (ie 256R256Y) the picture in the theater would be so true to life it would be worth paying a premium to see.

[gideongallery]

add things beside picture quality to the mix
like sound
aromatics (timed release of smells with the movies)
kenomatics (changes in temp, humidity etc timed to the movie)

and you have tons of technology to perculate down to the home market

each one creating new sales oppertunities to those that filmed at that level (see dvd, blue ray, widscreen etc) and edited down

[sortie]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

"Revenue - In 2006, fair use industries generated revenue of $4.5 trillion, a 31 percent
increase over 2002 revenue of $3.5 trillion. In percentage terms, the most significant
growth occurred in electronic shopping, audio and video equipment manufacturing,
Internet publishing and broadcasting, Internet service providers and web search portals,
and other information services.

That's got to be the most insulting statement in the world to the movie and
music industry that lost all the money that went to content thieves in that report.

What a crock of shit.

That's like me stealing your car and then claiming that using the car as a taxi produced
revenue of $50k and therefore stealing cars is good for the economy while
ignoring that you got fired from your $50k job because you no longer had transportation,
and subsequently defaulted on your $200k mortgage which forced the bank to sell it
for $150k.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

think about for a second if access shifting becomes a fair use right
then preventing it from being release on a medium would be just as legitimate at trying to prevent sony from making vcrs.

The act of charging insane liciencing fees for tv distribution would allow the tv stations to air the content for free.

They will make their money back from product placement/ etc.

Again, this will never happen. Part of the reason movies are released in theaters is because that helps set the value of them. A movie that does well in theaters will command more viewers when it makes its way to regular TV and thus command a larger licensing fee. While movies that don't do as well don't command as big of fees.

So are you suggesting that the movie studios simply share in the revenue brought in from the commercials sold on their broadcasts? If not how do you determine the value of a movie and how much to charge for a licensing fee?

really big movies like iron man will not have a problem,
the theaters would have it in 3d and be able to charge $20

the tv appearance would be an upsell to the "real" experience in the theater it would not be that hard to do if the theaters were a true technologically superior offering of the movie.

I think this is wishful thinking. Very few people would watch a movie on TV for free then pay $20 to go see it on the big screen. There might be a few people that would do this because there are people who pay to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but the number would be very small.

when dolby surround sound first hit the market it only existed in the movie theater
home sound systems did not exist

movies needed special equipment to record /edit the multi channel sound signal

you need to use editing software and equipement to downgrade multichannel signal into the single /stereo channel signal most people actually had

that technology existed only in the movies and as cost came down it appeared in the home market, bringing new sales for the content producers (dvd,Blue ray, etc)

same would happen in the case of access shifting

Again I ask is this how you get 60 trillion/year of additional income into the economy as you stated before?

paramount is not entitled to money from the sale of panasonic tv etc just because they produced the content

just like universal was not entitled to the profits from the sale of the vcr

paramount would earn it profits from medium distribution of the content just like universal earned money from putting their movies on the tape cassette and selling it to the owners of the vcr.

That is my point. You said all of this new revenue from the sale of technology (at least I am assuming this because you haven't said where this new revenue is coming from) would offset the loss in revenue due to piracy. The problem with this is that they are often two different companies so while one company gains, the other - the one producing the content- still loses.

those that adapt to the new market condition
shoot in six spectrum 8 bit color and downgrade their content to the lower mediums will survive

those that hang on to the old 3 spectrum 8 bit color will die

competition will breed the new income (see above).

if theaters had 2^ 48 colors while regular tv only had 2^24 and the content was actually shot in 2^48 and downgraded to regular tv viewing

you would have amazing effects in the theater that would

1. would make it worth while to go to the theater even if the content was released at the same time on other mediums
2. technologically impossible to duplicate with "cheap" recording devices

short term profits would drop as people would not want to see movies that are only marginally better because 256R256G was replaced with 256Y256Y

but when the content is filmed in 6 spectrum color then you would add all the combinations of true yellow with all the other colors (ie 256R256Y) the picture in the theater would be so true to life it would be worth paying a premium to see.

As I said above this, to me, is all basically wishful thinking. There are some people who would be willing to pay just for the experience of a movie in the theater. I'm one of those people. There are some movies that come out that I just want to see on the big screen. But most movies it doesn't matter to me one way or the other and I would rather wait until it is on DVD and I can watch it at home instead of paying $10 to see it in the theater. If it were available on DVD/pay-per-view at the same time as the release in theaters I will still just get the DVD and in almost every case watching it on DVD would never convince me to now go pay more to watch it on the big screen.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by sortie

That's got to be the most insulting statement in the world to the movie and
music industry that lost all the money that went to content thieves in that report.

What a crock of shit.

That's like me stealing your car and then claiming that using the car as a taxi produced
revenue of $50k and therefore stealing cars is good for the economy while
ignoring that you got fired from your $50k job because you no longer had transportation,
and subsequently defaulted on your $200k mortgage which forced the bank to sell it
for $150k.

It's not a statement, it's a statistical fact, and the reason why the law won't change.

And who said they lost money? The MPAA? Please....the MPAA has been proven full of shit in Court, they can't provide how or where they got the numbers of "loss" from. That's because it's made up.

Both the music and movie Industries have had record earnings, ticket sales, broke records all over the place last year - in America and around the World. Actually if anything, music has exploded... They didn't lose shit.


I don't get your example.... whatever you think it is, it clearly it isn't.

Fair use is very simple to understand, if Copyright was absolute, we would never progress forward in anything, period.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It's not a statement, it's a statistical fact, and the reason why the law won't change.

And who said they lost money? The MPAA? Please....the MPAA has been proven full of shit in Court, they can't provide how or where they got the numbers of "loss" from. That's because it's made up.

Both the music and movie Industries have had record earnings, ticket sales, broke records all over the place last year - in America and around the World. Actually if anything, music has exploded... They didn't lose shit.


I don't get your example.... whatever you think it is, it clearly it isn't.

Fair use is very simple to understand, if Copyright was absolute, we would never progress forward in anything, period.

Of course you don't get my example. Because if you did there would be no debate
about copyright law. The issue with copyright is that people can't grasp the
concept of theft unless they are stealing a tangible product.

Fair use is just fine.

Torrents, illegal tubes, content theft is only fair use in the mind of a fucking thief.

[tony286]

changed my mind its not worth it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

Again, this will never happen. Part of the reason movies are released in theaters is because that helps set the value of them. A movie that does well in theaters will command more viewers when it makes its way to regular TV and thus command a larger licensing fee. While movies that don't do as well don't command as big of fees.

So are you suggesting that the movie studios simply share in the revenue brought in from the commercials sold on their broadcasts? If not how do you determine the value of a movie and how much to charge for a licensing fee?

tv shows get signed to stations without establishing their audience levels in the theaters
it an insanely stupid arguement to say that the same thing methodology could not be uses for simalcast movies.

I think this is wishful thinking. Very few people would watch a movie on TV for free then pay $20 to go see it on the big screen. There might be a few people that would do this because there are people who pay to see a movie multiple times in the theater, but the number would be very small.

x-men orgins was leaked before the theatrical release, as a work print (inferior version)
and millions of the people who downloaded it went to the theater to see the commercial version
avatar had the same effect (cam vs 3d version)

if crappy 3d with stupid glasses made that much of a difference image what 3d generated by such a gradient differences in color without crapy glasses would do.

or add experiences like the smells of the rain forrest, wind, changes in temp, and 12 surround sound.

if the movie was reasonably good in the context of story, and i was told about all the extra stuff i could get in the theater i would definately pay $20 to see it again.

Again I ask is this how you get 60 trillion/year of additional income into the economy as you stated before?

the equipement to upgrade the theaters
the equipment to film at the higher level
the pre production cost (people to run, training etc) to utilize the equipement
post production to downgrade to dvd/tv quality
the sale of all the tvs that would need to be upgraded when that technology becomes more afforable (3 stages, early adopter, influencers, mass market)
the sale price of the playing equipment
support cost of the new technology (installing, repair, delivering, etc)

repeat with the new technology (since when it hit mass market the theaters would need to implement a new technology to create the justification to see it in the theater)

That is my point. You said all of this new revenue from the sale of technology (at least I am assuming this because you haven't said where this new revenue is coming from) would offset the loss in revenue due to piracy. The problem with this is that they are often two different companies so while one company gains, the other - the one producing the content- still loses.

ok let assume that some how your right, and the common practise of being able to resell the content in a better remastered version magically disappears from the standard technological upgrade cycle (vcr -> dvd-> blue ray)

so what

why should the fact that content producers lose out because an abuse of their monopoly is eliminated justify letting that abuse continue.

we are talking about 60 trillion dollars of jobs to protect 300 million in jobs.

Real world physical goods have way more jobs created then digital content.
physical things have to be delivered, they have to be fixed they have to be installed. Those jobs are local so they don't get outsourced to foreign countries.

internally created they benefit the countries economy more then content creation.

As I said above this, to me, is all basically wishful thinking. There are some people who would be willing to pay just for the experience of a movie in the theater. I'm one of those people. There are some movies that come out that I just want to see on the big screen. But most movies it doesn't matter to me one way or the other and I would rather wait until it is on DVD and I can watch it at home instead of paying $10 to see it in the theater. If it were available on DVD/pay-per-view at the same time as the release in theaters I will still just get the DVD and in almost every case watching it on DVD would never convince me to now go pay more to watch it on the big screen.

but the experience is really not that different then what you can get at home.

when the difference is great (3d vs non 3d or work print vs full movie) the number prove people will go and see the "real" version

your arguement basically proves the point i am making, you don't care because for most movies the difference isn't worth going to the theater to see.

create a technological superiority for the theaters and you go back to the days when we went to see star wars multiple times because the sound of the ships flying by actually seemed to move back right to front left (4 point vs standard stereo)
when the movie was an immersive experience.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

tv shows get signed to stations would establishing their audience levels in the theaters
it an insanely stupid arguement to say that the same thing methodology could not be uses for simalcast movies.

The first sentence here makes no sense at all and I have no idea what you are trying to say which makes the second sentence meaningless. Are you saying they would base the pay on similar TV shows? None of what you wrote here really resembles basic 8th grade English so you need to edit it and make what you are trying to say more clear.

x-men orgins was leaked before the theatrical release, as a work print (inferior version)
and millions of the people who downloaded it went to the theater to see the commercial version
avatar had the same effect (cam vs 3d version)

if crappy 3d with stupid glasses made that much of a difference image what 3d generated by such a gradient differences in color without crapy glasses would do.

or add experiences like the smells of the rain forrest, wind, changes in temp, and 12 surround sound.

if the movie was reasonably good in the context of story, and i was told about all the extra stuff i could get in the theater i would definately pay $20 to see it again.

These are examples that are going to be exceptions to the rule. Of course those movies still did well. They were hugely marketed and very highly anticipated. We have no idea of knowing how many downloaders actually then went and paid for a ticket. Also, we aren't talking about a workprint here. You think people will watch the show on TV for free then pay to see it in the theater? There is a big difference between what people would see on TV and a workprint.

I think the number of people who would be willing to pay $20 for a movie is pretty slim. Where I live we have a theater (well it is actually about 25 miles from where I live) that offers a huge buffet of food, giant reclining chairs (like you would have in your living room) all digital screens and the promise of no kids in any movie that is meant for adults. They charge $20 per ticket because they are a "premium" service. I went there once and it was pretty cool. The place was at about 75% capacity on a Saturday night. They tried to open up a second location and it failed because they found out that one location is a novelty and something a lot of people were willing to do on occasion, two locations were too many and couldn't compete with the other theaters that cost half as much.

There are people who would pay $20 for a movie if it really was a great experience, but there are many more who would pay $10, but skip it if it cost $20. Here is a perfect example. I paid the extra couple of bucks and saw Avatar in 3D. I liked it a lot and told my friends about it. Both of them decided not to go see it because their kids wanted to see it and they didn't want to pay the extra money for all of them. So they waited until it was out on DVD. If you have a spouse and 2 kids and you want to go to a movie, $40 is a lot of money, $80 is outrageous.

the equipement to upgrade the theaters
the equipment to film at the higher level
the pre production cost (people to run, training etc) to utilize the equipement
post production to downgrade to dvd/tv quality
the sale of all the tvs that would need to be upgraded when that technology becomes more afforable (3 stages, early adopter, influencers, mass market)
the sale price of the playing equipment
support cost of the new technology (installing, repair, delivering, etc)

repeat with the new technology (since when it hit mass market the theaters would need to implement a new technology to create the justification to see it in the theater)

This is all fine and good but this is still no 60 trillion/year business. To say that would mean that it is bigger than all of the oil companies and all of the auto companies in the world combined.

This also doesn't address the problem of lost revenue for the the content producer. They are the ones who suffer from piracy. All the increased sales of A/V gear in the world doesn't help them recoup their losses to pirates.

ok let assume that some how your right, and the common practise of being able to resell the content in a better remastered version magically disappears from the standard technological upgrade cycle (vcr -> dvd-> blue ray)

so what

why should the fact that content producers lose out because an abuse of their monopoly is eliminated justify letting that abuse continue.

we are talking about 60 trillion dollars of jobs to protect 300 million in jobs.

Real world physical goods have way more jobs created then digital content.
physical things have to be delivered, they have to be fixed they have to be installed. Those jobs are local so they don't get outsourced to foreign countries.

internally created they benefit the countries economy more then content creation.

Again, where do you get this 60 trillion number? As I pointed out in my answer above that is a huge amount. Where is this coming from? Do you have proof or are you just pulling this number out of your ass?

Also, all the great A/V gear in the world isn't worth a pile of shit if you have nothing to play on it. As piracy continues to grow we could see fewer and fewer movies being made. Fewer big budget movies being made and more lower budget, less risky movies made. People complain that there is only crap coming out of Hollywood now. Wait until they start losing more money to piracy and see what they make. The less chance for them to make money that they have the fewer risks they are going to take and the more mundane the crap is going to get.

That aside, I still want to see proof as to how this increase in home theater technology is going to fuel a 60 trillion dollar/ year industry.

but the experience is really not that different then what you can get at home.

when the difference is great (3d vs non 3d or work print vs full movie) the number prove people will go and see the "real" version

your arguement basically proves the point i am making, you don't care because for most movies the difference isn't worth going to the theater to see.

create a technological superiority for the theaters and you go back to the days when we went to see star wars multiple times because the sound of the ships flying by actually seemed to move back right to front left (4 point vs standard stereo)
when the movie was an immersive experience.

As I said, there are some movies I want to see in the theater. For example, Iron Man 2 I wanted to see in the theater because I wanted the big screen, good sound system etc. But there are only a few of that type of movie each year that really inspire me to go to the theater. Just about every other movie I don't care about the big screen. For example, I just got Shutter Island in the mail today from Netflix. I have wanted to see it for a while, but I could have cared less about seeing it on the big screen.

There are always going to be event movies that will do well no matter if they have large numbers of downloads or not. The movies that benefit the most from a theatrical release are movies like The Hangover. This movie did a lot better than anyone thought it would at the box office. Because of this they sold a lot more DVDs, had a ton more pay-per-view buys and I'm sure they got a pretty handsome price to sell the rights to HBO and other TV/cable providers. Had they released it to all channels at once that very well may not have happened.

I have said all along that you get what you pay for. As you devalue content and treat it like it is filler or garbage to be used and tossed away at your whim, eventually you will get what you pay and chances are you won't like it.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

The first sentence here makes no sense at all and I have no idea what you are trying to say which makes the second sentence meaningless. Are you saying they would base the pay on similar TV shows? None of what you wrote here really resembles basic 8th grade English so you need to edit it and make what you are trying to say more clear.

i corrected it

tv shows get signed to stations without establishing their audience levels in the theaters
it an insanely stupid arguement to say that the same thing methodology could not be uses for simalcast movies.

you were trying to argue that even though ever single tv show that currently airs on tv never established an audience baseline in the theaters (all of which were paid for by the stations btw)

it somehow impossible for the same methodology to be use for movies.

These are examples that are going to be exceptions to the rule. Of course those movies still did well. They were hugely marketed and very highly anticipated. We have no idea of knowing how many downloaders actually then went and paid for a ticket. Also, we aren't talking about a workprint here. You think people will watch the show on TV for free then pay to see it in the theater? There is a big difference between what people would see on TV and a workprint.

I think the number of people who would be willing to pay $20 for a movie is pretty slim. Where I live we have a theater (well it is actually about 25 miles from where I live) that offers a huge buffet of food, giant reclining chairs (like you would have in your living room) all digital screens and the promise of no kids in any movie that is meant for adults. They charge $20 per ticket because they are a "premium" service. I went there once and it was pretty cool. The place was at about 75% capacity on a Saturday night. They tried to open up a second location and it failed because they found out that one location is a novelty and something a lot of people were willing to do on occasion, two locations were too many and couldn't compete with the other theaters that cost half as much.

There are people who would pay $20 for a movie if it really was a great experience, but there are many more who would pay $10, but skip it if it cost $20. Here is a perfect example. I paid the extra couple of bucks and saw Avatar in 3D. I liked it a lot and told my friends about it. Both of them decided not to go see it because their kids wanted to see it and they didn't want to pay the extra money for all of them. So they waited until it was out on DVD. If you have a spouse and 2 kids and you want to go to a movie, $40 is a lot of money, $80 is outrageous.

i was including concessions in that price point

This is all fine and good but this is still no 60 trillion/year business. To say that would mean that it is bigger than all of the oil companies and all of the auto companies in the world combined.

it was a research report, that stated that number they used
remember that each technological advancement in components spures other industry and technologies

mp3 commercialized solid state disk, reducing the price of solid state disk from $5/mb to $5/gb

creating trillions of dollars worth of new technology, cell phones, pda, game machines etc all would not exist in their current form if solid state disk had not been commercialized.

your obviously ignoring all of that technological advancement.

but for the sake of arguement let ignore all of that
say you only uses the hard statistics from the vcr days , the jobs created within the country for the sale of hard goods

at the time 5 jobs were created selling vcr for every job lost making content.

And here is the key

vcr created a new sales channel for th content

movies that were only sold in the theaters were sold on video cassette

This also doesn't address the problem of lost revenue for the the content producer. They are the ones who suffer from piracy. All the increased sales of A/V gear in the world doesn't help them recoup their losses to pirates.

only if your a world class moron who doesn't realize that each new medium provides another sales channel

fact

when people upgrade their vcr to dvd players they rebought their favorite movies

they did the same thing when they upgraded to blue ray.

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bl.../dp/B000Y9Q59W

wall street a movie released originally on video cassette is being sold on blue ray

if your arguement had any validity then the sales of such a release would have to be zero.

Again, where do you get this 60 trillion number? As I pointed out in my answer above that is a huge amount. Where is this coming from? Do you have proof or are you just pulling this number out of your ass?

ok say the number is totally wrong

let say it only as good as history has already proven

use the old vcr numbers 5 jobs were gained for every job that was claimed to be lost

none of those jobs were actually lost because studios started selling the movies to the people that bought the vcr (creating the greatest revenue greater than all other sources combined)

Also, all the great A/V gear in the world isn't worth a pile of shit if you have nothing to play on it. As piracy continues to grow we could see fewer and fewer movies being made. Fewer big budget movies being made and more lower budget, less risky movies made. People complain that there is only crap coming out of Hollywood now. Wait until they start losing more money to piracy and see what they make. The less chance for them to make money that they have the fewer risks they are going to take and the more mundane the crap is going to get.

do you want to produce a single piece of proof that this is happening.
just one documented record that proves that capital investment in movie production has decreased.

movie budgets have grown year after year, actors salaries have grown
profits are up, more movies are being release

That aside, I still want to see proof as to how this increase in home theater technology is going to fuel a 60 trillion dollar/ year industry.

if your going to ignore all the spawned technologies that could exist by the commercialization of component technologies (ie all the industries/consumer devices that were created because solid state disk dropped from 5/mb to 5/gb) then yes it would be hard to see how it would be that great.

for the sake of arguement let just pretend none of that exists.

physical goods have massive LOCAL job creation in the support of those items

the vcr created 5 jobs for every job "suspected" of being lost

every dollar "suspected" of being lost was replaced with even more money when the platform was embraced.

So none of those so called losses actually ever existed.

As I said, there are some movies I want to see in the theater. For example, Iron Man 2 I wanted to see in the theater because I wanted the big screen, good sound system etc. But there are only a few of that type of movie each year that really inspire me to go to the theater. Just about every other movie I don't care about the big screen. For example, I just got Shutter Island in the mail today from Netflix. I have wanted to see it for a while, but I could have cared less about seeing it on the big screen.

There are always going to be event movies that will do well no matter if they have large numbers of downloads or not. The movies that benefit the most from a theatrical release are movies like The Hangover. This movie did a lot better than anyone thought it would at the box office. Because of this they sold a lot more DVDs, had a ton more pay-per-view buys and I'm sure they got a pretty handsome price to sell the rights to HBO and other TV/cable providers. Had they released it to all channels at once that very well may not have happened.

I have said all along that you get what you pay for. As you devalue content and treat it like it is filler or garbage to be used and tossed away at your whim, eventually you will get what you pay and chances are you won't like it.

fact physical goods provide for the local economy
when your dvr/pvr breaks you don't ship it all the way to china to get fixed you get it fixed at the local level

fact content production and editing is continually being outsourced to cheap labor countries.

even if the income loss balanced out perfectly protecting fair use would be good for a countries economy.

Fact the vcr historical records proved for every one job projected to be lost in entertainment industry 5 jobs were created

common sense supporting a physcial good creates more jobs than supporting a digital one.

how many people do you think it takes to "deliver" a bunch of streamed content.
how many people does it take to "deliver" a pallet lot of pvr/vcr etc.


so this arguement basically comes down, because of a potential loss that only occurs for a small group of entertainment we should destroy all the jobs that would be created.

jobs that history has repeatedly proven have been created every time we have had this dispute

for "Suspected" income losses, and a dooms day senerio that has never happened even though it has been predicted time and time again.

i have a simple question

why should we believe that this dooms day senerio will happen this time given the fact that every previous time it has been predicted it never happened.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

As I said, there are some movies I want to see in the theater. For example, Iron Man 2 I wanted to see in the theater because I wanted the big screen, good sound system etc. But there are only a few of that type of movie each year that really inspire me to go to the theater. Just about every other movie I don't care about the big screen. For example, I just got Shutter Island in the mail today from Netflix. I have wanted to see it for a while, but I could have cared less about seeing it on the big screen.

There are always going to be event movies that will do well no matter if they have large numbers of downloads or not. The movies that benefit the most from a theatrical release are movies like The Hangover. This movie did a lot better than anyone thought it would at the box office. Because of this they sold a lot more DVDs, had a ton more pay-per-view buys and I'm sure they got a pretty handsome price to sell the rights to HBO and other TV/cable providers. Had they released it to all channels at once that very well may not have happened.

I have said all along that you get what you pay for. As you devalue content and treat it like it is filler or garbage to be used and tossed away at your whim, eventually you will get what you pay and chances are you won't like it.

if all oil companies who controlled gasoline decided to only sell super unlead the first week of the month, uleaded the second week and regualar the last 2 weeks they could jack the price up of the premium grades a lot more than normal

people who would be perfectly happy with regular gas in their car would be forced to pay $3/litre.

but that extra money would be an abuse of the monopoly.

When you point to the hangover and state that would not make the same amount of money if they let the mediums compete against each other fairly you are proving the point that i am making.

All that extra money, is from artifically extending the monopoly on content distribution to medium selection.

if the copyright holder liciences all the content to all the mediums at the same time
they get all the money still.

they just don't get revenue from forcing people to use a MEDIUM they don't want to use.


look back at every fair use

vcr = universal tried to force people to use a medium for timeshifting ( re runs)

mp3= sony tried to force people to use a medium for playing (CD)

the new medium was better, consumers prefered them because they had competitive advantages over the one that the copyright holder was attempting to force people to use.

The copyright holder made more money by forcing such a medium choice, but fair use invalid that act, because the copyright monopoly is only supposed to protect the income from the distribution of the content, and not the income generated by abusing that monopoly to make an inferior medium superior.



amazingly every single time that happened, more money was made by the content creators.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

if all oil companies who controlled gasoline decided to only sell super unlead the first week of the month, uleaded the second week and regualar the last 2 weeks they could jack the price up of the premium grades a lot more than normal

people who would be perfectly happy with regular gas in their car would be forced to pay $3/litre.

but that extra money would be an abuse of the monopoly.

When you point to the hangover and state that would not make the same amount of money if they let the mediums compete against each other fairly you are proving the point that i am making.

All that extra money, is from artifically extending the monopoly on content distribution to medium selection.

if the copyright holder liciences all the content to all the mediums at the same time
they get all the money still.

they just don't get revenue from forcing people to use a MEDIUM they don't want to use.


look back at every fair use

vcr = universal tried to force people to use a medium for timeshifting ( re runs)

mp3= sony tried to force people to use a medium for playing (CD)

the new medium was better, consumers prefered them because they had competitive advantages over the one that the copyright holder was attempting to force people to use.

The copyright holder made more money by forcing such a medium choice, but fair use invalid that act, because the copyright monopoly is only supposed to protect the income from the distribution of the content, and not the income generated by abusing that monopoly to make an inferior medium superior.



amazingly every single time that happened, more money was made by the content creators.

People are not being forced to watch something in a medium that they don't want to use. They are being asked to wait until it is available to them. Just because you want it today doesn't mean you can have it today. Maybe you have to wait for it. That is how it works. The movie comes out in the theater and you can CHOOSE to go see it. You are not FORCED to go see it. You are REQUIRED to go see it. If you want to watch it, you can. If you would rather not pay that price or can't get to the theater for whatever reason you can wait a few months then watch it on DVD or pay-per-view. You will still get to see it, you just have to wait.

Yes when the VCR came into being they made more money. Why? Simple. They released the movie in theaters and built up word of mouth and built up anticipation then they sold the movie on tape. They use the theater as much as a form of marketing as they do a form of income and they should be allowed to use that tool as a way to sell their product.

[kane]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i corrected it



you were trying to argue that even though ever single tv show that currently airs on tv never established an audience baseline in the theaters (all of which were paid for by the stations btw)

it somehow impossible for the same methodology to be use for movies.

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.

i was including concessions in that price point




it was a research report, that stated that number they used
remember that each technological advancement in components spures other industry and technologies

mp3 commercialized solid state disk, reducing the price of solid state disk from $5/mb to $5/gb

creating trillions of dollars worth of new technology, cell phones, pda, game machines etc all would not exist in their current form if solid state disk had not been commercialized.

your obviously ignoring all of that technological advancement.

but for the sake of arguement let ignore all of that
say you only uses the hard statistics from the vcr days , the jobs created within the country for the sale of hard goods

at the time 5 jobs were created selling vcr for every job lost making content.

And here is the key

vcr created a new sales channel for th content

movies that were only sold in the theaters were sold on video cassette

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.

only if your a world class moron who doesn't realize that each new medium provides another sales channel

fact

when people upgrade their vcr to dvd players they rebought their favorite movies

they did the same thing when they upgraded to blue ray.

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bl.../dp/B000Y9Q59W

wall street a movie released originally on video cassette is being sold on blue ray

if your arguement had any validity then the sales of such a release would have to be zero.

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.

ok say the number is totally wrong

let say it only as good as history has already proven

use the old vcr numbers 5 jobs were gained for every job that was claimed to be lost

none of those jobs were actually lost because studios started selling the movies to the people that bought the vcr (creating the greatest revenue greater than all other sources combined)

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.




[/QUOTE]do you want to produce a single piece of proof that this is happening.
just one documented record that proves that capital investment in movie production has decreased.

movie budgets have grown year after year, actors salaries have grown
profits are up, more movies are being release[/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.

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.

if your going to ignore all the spawned technologies that could exist by the commercialization of component technologies (ie all the industries/consumer devices that were created because solid state disk dropped from 5/mb to 5/gb) then yes it would be hard to see how it would be that great.

for the sake of arguement let just pretend none of that exists.

physical goods have massive LOCAL job creation in the support of those items

the vcr created 5 jobs for every job "suspected" of being lost

every dollar "suspected" of being lost was replaced with even more money when the platform was embraced.

So none of those so called losses actually ever existed.

Please post some proof that the VCR created 5 jobs for every job that was "suspected" to have been lost.

fact physical goods provide for the local economy
when your dvr/pvr breaks you don't ship it all the way to china to get fixed you get it fixed at the local level

fact content production and editing is continually being outsourced to cheap labor countries.

even if the income loss balanced out perfectly protecting fair use would be good for a countries economy.

Fact the vcr historical records proved for every one job projected to be lost in entertainment industry 5 jobs were created

common sense supporting a physcial good creates more jobs than supporting a digital one.

how many people do you think it takes to "deliver" a bunch of streamed content.
how many people does it take to "deliver" a pallet lot of pvr/vcr etc.


so this arguement basically comes down, because of a potential loss that only occurs for a small group of entertainment we should destroy all the jobs that would be created.

jobs that history has repeatedly proven have been created every time we have had this dispute

for "Suspected" income losses, and a dooms day senerio that has never happened even though it has been predicted time and time again.

i have a simple question

why should we believe that this dooms day senerio will happen this time given the fact that every previous time it has been predicted it never happened.

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.

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.

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.

[Dirty Dane]

It's true that some poor kid in China downloading illegal is not a loss, but the moment he start sharing with others, some of which otherwise would have paid if it was not available for free, then it IS a loss.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by sortie

Of course you don't get my example. Because if you did there would be no debate
about copyright law. The issue with copyright is that people can't grasp the
concept of theft unless they are stealing a tangible product.

Fair use is just fine.

Torrents, illegal tubes, content theft is only fair use in the mind of a fucking thief.

What you want is a dream world of absolute copyrights, which isn't possible.

I understand we have 'thief's' that enter our sites, rip our member areas, and post them on forums or whatever. While that is stealing in my book too, legally we can't do shit about it. Technically, it's not illegal.

The moment we publish porn online, unprotected with no lic agreement to members - legally, they can download it, burn it to a DVD and give it to a friend - legally.

No different than downloading it, and uploading it to a tube, torrent, etc. It's legal for them to do this, it's legal for you to do it as well.

The issue with Copyright is people 'think' it's absolute.. when it was never designed to be that way.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

It's true that some poor kid in China downloading illegal is not a loss, but the moment he start sharing with others, some of which otherwise would have paid if it was not available for free, then it IS a loss.

That's assuming they found you first and wanted to buy, before the friend shared the piracy.

Normally what happens is, the person has never heard of you, got the porn through piracy, and know nows who you are.

Then it's a gain..

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

That's assuming they found you first and wanted to buy, before the friend shared the piracy.

Normally what happens is, the person has never heard of you, got the porn through piracy, and know nows who you are.

Then it's a gain..

"Normally" ... "Then it's a gain" .. can you prove that?

The romantic idea that piracy is "free" marketing is normally bullshit when put into practice. The same moderators using that argument is the same that filter it out as spam. That's hypocracy. You know as well as me that all piracy channels would be totally dominated by marketing if the moderators truly stood by that argument.
Besides that, it's still a matter of license. The copyright holder has the legal right and final word, no matter what kind of arguments are presented.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

What you want is a dream world of absolute copyrights, which isn't possible.

I understand we have 'thief's' that enter our sites, rip our member areas, and post them on forums or whatever. While that is stealing in my book too, legally we can't do shit about it. Technically, it's not illegal.

The moment we publish porn online, unprotected with no lic agreement to members - legally, they can download it, burn it to a DVD and give it to a friend - legally.

No different than downloading it, and uploading it to a tube, torrent, etc. It's legal for them to do this, it's legal for you to do it as well.

The issue with Copyright is people 'think' it's absolute.. when it was never designed to be that way.

The Napster case proves you wrong.

The music and movie business are making money because they smacked Napster
in the ass and made youtube get serious too.

The Napster case was years ago buddy. Years ago. About a decade ago, so
now you are pointing to music industry profits from this year.

The issue is not "absolute copyright"; the issue is the failure of people to understand
fair use. Plain and simple, if the material is not used for education, critical speech,
news reporting, commentary then it's going to be a violation. Using a small portion
of the material is not a way to get around the above mentioned criteria.

A porn review site that shows a short clip from a pay site along with a review is
fair use. A tube with no review, full length movies, and not even a reference to
the pay site is not fair use.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster

Heavy metal band Metallica discovered that a demo of their song ?I Disappear? had been circulating across the network, even before it was released. This eventually led to the song being played on several radio stations across America and brought to Metallica?s attention that their entire back catalogue of studio material was also available. The band responded in 2000 by filing a lawsuit against Napster. A month later, rapper and producer Dr. Dre, who shared a litigator and legal firm with Metallica, filed a similar lawsuit after Napster wouldn't remove his works from their service, even after he issued a written request. Separately, both Metallica and Dr. Dre later delivered thousands of usernames to Napster who they believed were pirating their songs. One year later, Napster settled both suits, but this came after being shut down by the Ninth Circuit Court in a separate lawsuit from several major record labels (see below).

Also in 2000, Madonna, who had previously met with Napster executives to discuss a possible partnership, per Napster's then-CEO and then-head of marketing, and who was rumored to own a percentage of the company,[according to whom?] became "irate" when her single "Music" leaked out on to the web and Napster prior to its commercial release, causing widespread media coverage.[6] Verified Napster use peaked with 26.4 million users worldwide in February 2001.[7]

In 2000, A&M Records and several other recording companies, via the RIAA, sued Napster (A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.) for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[8] The music industry made the following claims against Napster:

1. That its users were directly infringing the plaintiffs' copyrights.
2. That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights.
3. That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights.

Napster lost the case in the District Court and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the Ninth Circuit found that Napster was capable of commercially significant non-infringing uses, it affirmed the District Court's decision. On remand, the District Court ordered Napster to monitor the activities of its network and to block access to infringing material when notified of that material's location. Napster was unable to do this, and so shut down its service in July 2001. Napster finally declared itself bankrupt in 2002 and sold its assets. It had already been offline since the previous year owing to the effect of the court rulings.[9]

[sortie]

The only reason illegal porn tubes still exist is because no one wants to
appear to be supporting the porn industry.

No senator is going to give a speech about the lost profits of porn due to piracy and
that action must be taken to protect the porn industry.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

People are not being forced to watch something in a medium that they don't want to use. They are being asked to wait until it is available to them. Just because you want it today doesn't mean you can have it today. Maybe you have to wait for it. That is how it works. The movie comes out in the theater and you can CHOOSE to go see it. You are not FORCED to go see it. You are REQUIRED to go see it. If you want to watch it, you can. If you would rather not pay that price or can't get to the theater for whatever reason you can wait a few months then watch it on DVD or pay-per-view. You will still get to see it, you just have to wait.

by that arguement the gas abuse should be legal too since your not forced to use premium you could wait until the end of the month to buy your regular gas, hell that should be more legal since you can stock pile the gas to cover the embargo of the first 2 weeks.



by that arguement vcr should never have been legalized either
it was just about waiting until the re run happening

by that arguement format shifting should not be allowed, since you would have to wait until sony decided to release mp3 version of their content


one thing your ignoring is that my ability to discuss the movie (free speech) is being limited by your justification. according to you censoring me because i don't like the medium

your desperately trying to justify a monopoly abuse by saying it not that bad, well i can do the same thing with all the other monopoly abuses guess what it doesn't make them any more legitimate.

Yes when the VCR came into being they made more money. Why? Simple. They released the movie in theaters and built up word of mouth and built up anticipation then they sold the movie on tape. They use the theater as much as a form of marketing as they do a form of income and they should be allowed to use that tool as a way to sell their product.

that a bullshit arguement and you know it
the vcr was considered a industry killer jack V claimed it was the boston strangler
they finally decided to adapt after congress refused block the vcr.

second there are thousands of movies that are released direct to dvd.

[gideongallery]

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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.

[_Richard_]

i was listening to this expose on radiohead, and it mentioned the in rainbows album

apparently it was still downloaded illegally from torrents etc, even tho it was a free download